www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Constantinople IV

In this thread

Link

which was going off topic there was discussion about Constantinople IV and the fact that the churches accept different councils.

My question is it possible to officially recognize the later council and what would the ramifications of that be?

Before we get too deep into the discussion of Constantinople IV, I'd like to comment on the first part of your post, to wit:


Relatively speaking, what you're saying is more characteristic of Orthodox than Catholics. You might be surprised, though, by some of the things Catholics say regarding ecumenism.

An example of this (albeit a rather extreme example) are some comments about Cardinal Walter Kasper that I've come across, such as this thread I recently encountered on catholic.com:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=197343

which is perhaps most notable for estesbob, a "forum elder" with 24,980 posts under his belt, comparing Cardinal Kasper to John Shelby Spong.

What makes you think it has not been recognized?

And already, the ramifications of that act have been considerable, insofar as the modus vivendi of 880 is now being considered as a basis for restoration of communion in the future?

By the way, there has never been an "official" list of "Ecumenical Councils" in the Latin Church. The most commonly used one was compiled by Robert Bellarmine for anti-Protestant polemical use, and is full of contradiction, not the least being that, until the 12th century, the Synod of 879-880 was considered ecumenical by Rome (it was, after all, ratified by Pope John VIII), while the Synod of 869-870 was considered null and void. Anti-Orthodox polemics saw a repudiation of the later synod and a restoration of the earlier one. Obviously, in the Latin Church, there are no real criteria for recognition of a synod as "ecumenical" other than reception.

That reality was recognized by the Ravenna Statement of the Joint International Theological Commission, particularly paras 35-39, which essentially says there have been no true ecumenical councils since 787. As Rome signed off on the statement, the implications of that are simply enormous.

The Orthodox should try to be good winners, as I must continually remind them.

http://www.catholic.org/prayers/councils.php

The Forth Council of Constantinople (A.D. 869) This was a disciplinary Council to heal the threat of schism which was separating the East and Rome. This was done by deposing the usurper, Photius, and restoring the patriarch, Ignatius. The Greeks finally refused acknowledgment of the Council.

http://www.catholic.org/about/

Catholic Online has consistently provided the world wide Catholic Community with dependable and reliable content and Internet services for over 10 years. We have the largest Catholic Online presence on the Internet. In order to continue to build OUR Catholic Online Community your active support is needed.

Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_Constantinople_%28Roman_Catholic%29

A later council, the Greek Fourth Council of Constantinople, was held after Photios had been reinstated on the order of the emperor. 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 yet clear.



So no Catholic councils since 787 can be considered dogmatic, is that really true?


I'm just trying to understand the issue. One of the fundamental things that does not make sense is how the later council could be accepted if it condemns altering the creed. That makes no sense whatsoever.

1. Don't take what is on Catholic web sites at face value. Read some history for a change, and find out what people who matter are thinking about things.

2. Photios is in our Typicon on 6 February. And Photios is a saint, who died in communion with the Church of Rome. Again, read some history.


3. That's the way the wind is blowing, and has been for some time (like, oh, 1974)


4. The Latin Church through the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity has already issued a Clarification [web.archive.org] on the procession of the Holy Spirit that acknowledges the uninterpolated Greek text of the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople as being the "only ecumenically binding symbol of faith".


Game, set, match--Orthodoxy.

That's why I say you have to learn to be good winners. Allow Rome to save face. There are a billion of them, more than four times as many as there are of you. When the one thing that is holding the Latin Church together is the tenuous hold of the Bishop of Rome over his factious flock, it would not be healthy for Orthodoxy to insist on humiliating Rome or casting doubts upon its moral authority.

Be gracious in victory, accept the substance of Rome's concession, and allow Rome to maintain the fig leaf it needs.

I have, and it still is not clear to me which council (and subsequent ones) are dogmatically binding.

Why do these misconceptions persist and are still communicated if the thinking has actually changed? Why aren't they corrected with clear information about for instance which councils are ecumenical and binding and which aren't?



How can anathemas be applied to councils post 787 then? Did somebody think they were dogmatic but aren't?


That to me doesn't address whether or not it's legitimate to alter the creed though.

From my point of view (and, I think, that of my Patriarch), nothing after Nicaea II is ecumenically binding. Later local and general councils may be binding upon specific Churches that have received them.


Isolated from the Christian East, the Church of Rome developed the unpleasant habit of thinking it was the only true Church, and therefore doctrinal decisions which were specific only to the Latin Church were defined "dogmatically"--however they cannot be applied to Churches of different Traditions that have different modes of expression and different perspectives, unless those Churches voluntarily receive the teachings of those councils. In short, the dogmas of the second millennium councils bark but don't bite, because the term "dogma", and thus the associated anathemas, has been applied in a sloppy and inexact manner.


So, basically, you want Rome to come out and say, "Hey, we really screwed up in the 11th century, and we meekly beg your forgiveness for having been in error". That's what I mean by being a bad winner. If you read the Clarification with any degree of charity, it's all there. Just read between the lines.

I have to say I'm just unconvinced by this argument. Anathemas are tied to something real and binding. Different particular churches can't just have their own anathemas that suit their own needs and feelings.

The general line of what you're saying also is striking me as somehow forwarding the idea that the Catholic Church is living under the illusion that it has a post schism conciliar tradition, that some in the church recognize is now not the case but most people don't know this. That really under the covers, despite what you may read or hear, it's really just the same as the Orthodox Church. I'm not buying in to this argument either. On the board Peter J linked to, based on what I read, I can't imagine what this idea would elicit in terms of a reaction.


No, the whole issue over the Filioque strikes me as about the worst aspect of the pre schism church. I'm comfortable with the clarification. I'm just trying to understand how a council can be accepted that condemns the use of the Filioque. Even with the clarification, it doesn't make sense.

Great discussion. Just finished reading; wish I had a lot of time tonight to post some thoughts of my own.

Briefly, I think a certain amount of "saving face" on both sides is in order, e.g. Catholics don't need to put on sackcloth for having "added" the filioque to the creed; Orthodox don't need to put on sackcloth for having called the filioque a heresy.

No, they aren't, if the Church chooses to ignore them.


Yes, they can. Again, look to early Church history: local and regional councils, responding to local situations, frequently anathematized specific beliefs and individuals. Sometimes these anathemas were accepted more widely, more often they were not. When enough Churches accept a local or regional council, it can become "ecumenical" in fact, if not in name. Conversely, just calling a council ecumenical does not make it so, any more than calling an ox a bull makes it so. Only through reception does a council become ecumenical.

Rome never altogether annulled the Council of 869-870, that is to say, the Church of Rome has always considered St. Photius's first patriarchate illegitimate, and his second patriarchate legitimate.

Daniel Stiernon ["Autour de Constantinople IV (869-870)", p. 180] points out that nowhere does Pope John VIII, in his genuine (i.e., unmodified) letters, abrogate the 869-870 Council, and he cites [n. 148] Fr. Venance Grumel, A.A., "Les lettres de Jean VIII pour le rétablissement de Photius," in Echos d'Orient, XXXIX (1940), 138-156. Stiernon also stresses ["Autour de Constantinople IV (869-870)," p. 176] that in the pope's genuine letter to Byzantine Emperor Basil I the Macedonian [MGH, Epist., VII, 169), Pope John VIII cites canon 68 of the Local Council of Carthage (419) [newadvent.org] [Mansi III:771E [documentacatholicaomnia.eu]], which reads:

Moreover, the letter of Pope Stephen V of pious memory (885-891) to Emperor Basil I in 885 or 886 proves that no pope annulled the 869-870 Council, since Photius, who nonetheless died in communion with Rome and in the odor of sanctity, was still, at the time, trying to have the former council abrogated. See Fr. Grumel's "La Lettre du Pape Étienne V a l'empereur Basile Ier" on pp. 129-136 of the 1953 edition of Revue de etudes byzantines; the letter, according to p. 137, is from the manuscript Sinaiticus gr. 1117, 326v-328v. Fr. Dvornik, S.J. of pious memory did not address this even in the 1970 edition of his monumental work, The Photian Schism.

Au contraire. By ratifying the acts of the Synod of 879-880, Pope John VIII delegitimized the Synod of 869-870, whose acts were burned in a copper kettle, and whose decrees were declared null and void. Principal among these was the condemnation and deposition of Photios. A formal abrogation is unnecessary, simply because the decrees ratified by Pope John VIII have already done so.

The point is therefore moot, and the entire argument specious, an example of sophistry on a monumental scale. Which is why Dvornik never addressed it: it wasn't worthy of serious response.

I think it's better not to imagine it.

Although, to do justice to estesbob's post, I perhaps should have said that he made a qualified comparison between Kasper and Spong ("From the link given he looks to me like the Catholic version of Bishops Spong"). Nevertheless, a little shocking to me because I would expect him to have a super-high regard for all the Cardinals.

Another webpage I came across (I hope I won't offend anyone by quoting from fisheaters.com) is a bit more amusing:


What I wonder is: how did he or she manage to include that last sentence without noticing that it completely undermines the "story" he or she is telling?

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com...mp;topic=2510422.msg24063115#msg24063115

The one thing I would take issue with there, is your claim that the Synod of 879-880 was considered ecumenical (not just recognized as legitimate) by Rome.

Granted, the term is anachronistic, but it is accurate, in that the canons of the synod were accepted by Rome and Constantinople (and by extension, to the suffragan Eastern patriarchs of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch), and entered into their canonical books. Therefore, the acts of the synod were effective throughout the oikumene (the boundaries of the Roman Empire), making it "ecumenical" in the same manner that the Patriarch of Constantinople used the title "ecumenical".