www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West St. Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople

Dear Eastern Catholics:
My question concerns whether or not St. Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople, is a Saint in the Byzantine Catholic Church or not. *If* he is a Saint, do you have any references (either in book or in web page form) in the Eastern Catholic tradition (not Orthodox, as I know about it already in the Orthodox Church) which verify that he is a saint in the Eastern Catholic Church.
Thank you.

St. Photius is listed on the 2001 Ruthenian Typikon, Feb. 6. Any Byz. Cath. priest should have a copy of this.

anastasios

Dear charlbyz,

As an amateur hagiographer, let me say there is a slight problem with the way you've posed your question.

In the East, the recognition of saints is an entirely local matter.

Churches may decide to proclaim in their own calendars and liturgical lives the devotion to Saint so and so.

Recently, His All-Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople acknowledged St Stephen of Hungary as a Saint etc.

St Photios has been glorified a Saint by the Greek Church and his cult is universally accepted by all the local Churches of Orthodoxy of their own free will. Such is also the case among certain Byzantine Catholic Churches, but not among others.

As I understand it, the Roman Catholic Church has no problem with him either.

But this does not take away from the fact that he is "SAINT" Photios.

There are many cults to saints in different parts of the world that are not universal.

Today is St George's Day, for example. St George is, in fact, the only Martyr who is universally recognized as such.

This means that there is no Apostolic Church anywhere in the world that does not have him in its calendar.

Alex

Thank you for your kind reply to my question about St. Photios. If you would permit me a few comments:
1. I understand that the Roman Church does has a problem with the Sainthood of St. Photios. For example, in the Catholic Encyclopedia which is online, the entry, Photius, has him listed as one of the Church's worst enemies: "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." Also, are you sure that the Church of Rome lists him as a Saint?
2. Thanks for the information concerning the celebration of the Sainthood as it depends on the local Church. But still if he is listed in the Typikon, then doesn't that mean that St. Photios is considered a Saint regardless of the local celebration?
Thanks.
Charles

>>>1. I understand that the Roman Church does has a problem with the Sainthood of St. Photios. For example, in the Catholic Encyclopedia which is online,
the entry, Photius, has him listed as one of the Church's worst enemies: "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." Also, are you sure that the Church of Rome lists him as a Saint?<<<

I do wish New Advent would remove the Catholic Encyclopedia Online, since it is a copy of the 1913 edition, and seriously dated. At the time that this article was written, Cathlolic scholarship did indeed believe that Photios was an enemy of the Church, an unrepentent schismatic who died out of communion with Rome. Since that time, several very serious scholars have examined the issues, with access to original documents, both Greek and Latin. Most notable among these was the Dominican priest, Francis Dvornik, who taught history at Fordham in the 1950s and 60s. His monumental study, "The Photian Schism", cut through the polemics and pious mythology, and is now generally considerd authoritative.

According to Dvornik, whose conclusions are sustained by many other historians, most notably J.M. Hussey of Oxford, the entire Photian controversy grew out of political and territorial differences between Rome and Constantinople over the Illyrian Prefecture. Adding to the crisis was the issue of the deposition of Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople, and the election of Photios. Ignatius represented the rigorist wing of the Byzantine Church in the matter of readmitting iconoclast bishops and priests to communion. Photios was in favor of a more lenient policy of reconciliation. Some of Ignatius' monastic supporters went to Rome and began spreading misleading stories concerning the deposition of Ignatius and the election of Photios. It is significant that Ignatius himself never appealed to Rome, and never challenged Photios' legitimacy (in true Byzantine fashion, both Photios AND Ignatius are honored as saints). Pope Nicholas' deposition of Photios was widely regarded as illegitimate by the Eastern Churches, even by the supporters of Ignatius. Quite frankly, there was no precedent for one Patriarch unilaterally intervening in the affairs of another Patriarchate--and the Byzantines were not about to let Nicholas set a precedent.

Adding to the confusion was the Filioque issue, which generated more heat than light concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. Photios objected to the unilateral interpolation of the phrase ("and the Son") into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Frankish Church (which was then aggressively proselytizing in Moravia). Interestingly enough, Nicholas agreed on that one, but the issue of who would control Illyria was paramount, and when Photios told Nicholas that he was unable to change the boundaries because that power resided with the emperor, Nicholas had a fit and excommunicated Photios and his followers. It suited imperial policy at this time to conciliate Rome, so a council was held in 869-879, which deposed Photios and reinstated Ignatius. This council said nothing about the Filioque, by the way. But the solution did not make the problem go away, and because of continuing resistance within the Byzantine Church to a solution imposed by the Church of Rome, a new council was held in 879-880, which (a) restored Photios to communion in the Church; (b) declared null and void the acts of the council of 869-870; (c) declared the uninterpolated Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople to be the only ecumenical symbol of faith for the Catholic Church; and (d) agreed that the Patriarch of Constantinople would be preeminent within his territory as the Pope was in his. The acts of this council were ratified by Pope John VIII. Photios became patriarch after the death of Ignatius, and served until deposed by the Byzantine Emperor some years later. He died in full communion with the Church of Rome.

In the second millennium, Latin polemicists tried to imply that there was a second Photian Schism, and that the ratification of the Council of 879-880 was coerced and therefore null. Indeed, to this day, the Church of Rome recognizes the Council of 869-870 as being the "Eighth Ecumenical Council", despite the fact that a validly elected sitting pope ratified the acts of a later council that nullified the acts of the so-called 8th Ecumenical Council (because, of course, Rome never errs). However, the historical documentation is extensive and convincing: there never was a second Photian Schism, Rome eventually accepted Photios' view on the Filioque (though in 1014, under a Frankish pope, it reversed itself again), and the Council of 879-880 was accepted in the West as a valid council.

Those are the facts, but myth and fairey tale sometimes have a more enduring, or at least more compelling existence.

Dear Charles,

You are more than welcome!

In response to your second question, yes indeed!

There is a liturgical cult of a Roman Catholic crusader, a "St. John" on Rhodes, I believe, that is practiced by the local Orthodox people.

It is unknown in the West, however.

Also, when the decree came down by Rome that beatifications were to be done by it alone in the West, Italian bishops continued to beatify as they had always done.

These beatifications are accepted in the Roman Calendar, but the question of their cult is disputed etc.

Saints are also "rehabilitated."

Stuart, in his usual learned, encyclopedic and determined style, has stitched together points from many volumes on the question of St Photios.

St Gregory Palamas, accepted as a Saint by the Roman Church in 1974, was also regarded with suspicion as being a "Quietist" in many RC circles.

Meister Eckhardt has now had his anathema lifted. Jerome Savonarola's cause is advancing, especially after his society proved conclusively that Alexander VI cancelled his excommunication. Pope Liberius is a Saint in the East, but not in the West for signing an heretical document under compulsion.

As for Photios himself, he had no better defender than the Pope of Rome himself, John VIII who not only exonerated him, but defended his Trinitarian theology saying that he, the Pope, had always believed the "Filioque" to have been a heresy!

You are obviously a very devout and sincere Catholic and it is always so very good to come across individuals who are so strong in their faith as yourself!

Alex

" Most notable among these was the Dominican priest, Francis Dvornik, who taught history at Fordham in the 1950s and 60s. His monumental study, "The Photian Schism", cut through the polemics and pious mythology, and is now generally considerd authoritative."
There is a book by Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, vol. 2, The Building of Christendom, which is "strongly" critical of the work by Dvornik : Photian Schism. On the other hand, it recommends Dvornik's book: Byzantine Missions.
For a separate question on this, if the name of Photios appears in the Ruthenian Catholic Church typicon, does that then guarantee that the Church of Rome considers him to be a Saint, or can you have people who appear in the typicon as Saints but are not recognised by the Church of Rome to be a Saint. Also, who authorises this typicon, and generally, are there Saints of the Orthodox Church which are not recognised as Saints by the Roman Church?

Hello Charles,

"There is a book by Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, vol. 2, The Building of Christendom, which is "strongly" critical of the work by Dvornik : Photian Schism. On the other hand, it recommends Dvornik's book: Byzantine Missions."


Dr. Carroll is *very* unpopular around here, Charles. As you know, the Roman Catholic Church has multiple wings at this point, and Dr. Carroll represents the right wing. He's quite recalcitrant in his treatment of Eastern Christians -- even of Eastern Catholics. A number of regular posters here have had considerable back-and-forth with Dr. Carroll, and a number of letters have been written to EWTN complaining about this man's recalcitrance -- and, in one instance, he was actually corrected by the staff at EWTN. Suffice to say, his word is not reliable when he's dealing with Eastern Christianity -- in fact, it's extremely likely that whatever he says about Eastern Christianity is inaccurate and biased towards the traditional Latin perspective.

"For a separate question on this, if the name of Photios appears in the Ruthenian Catholic Church typicon, does that then guarantee that the Church of Rome considers him to be a Saint, or can you have people who appear in the typicon as Saints but are not recognised by the Church of Rome to be a Saint."

What do you mean by "recognition"? If a saint is venerated by a church with whom one is in communion, that is effectively saying that the saint is a part of the communion of saints, and is in communion with you. That's surely more important than any formal recognition. But, formally, under the current system Rome does approve the canonizations in all the particular churches of the Catholic communion (in contrast to Orthodox practice, which leaves this on the level of local church).

"generally, are there Saints of the Orthodox Church which are not recognised as Saints by the Roman Church?"

If you ask Dr. Carroll, he would say yes. If you ask folks at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, you'd get a very different answer. There *are* problematic saints on both sides, to be honest. But there is a growing convergence, coming from each side. As was noted, the Romans have, in the past few decades, rehabilitated St. Gregory Palamas -- that was a good step. Constantinople, earlier this year, accepted the glorification of St. Stephen of Hungary (a Latin Catholic who died after the separation) and incorporated his feast into the calendar of the Church of Constantinople. Steps are being made in the right direction, it seems.

Brendan

Dear Charles,

There are and alway have been local saints venerated in Roman Catholic countries that are not in the Roman Universal Calendar.

The same is true for Orthodoxy.

When the Uniate Churches came into communion with Rome, Rome, by and large, left the saints that those Churches inherited from their Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox patrimony alone and they could continue to venerate them as their local saints.

The Ethiopian Catholic Church is a good example.

Sts. Takla Haymonot, Abuna Manfas Qeddus and the Nine Saints continue to be venerated by the Ethiopian Catholics.

St Pontius Pilate, however, was expunged.

Andrew Sheptytsky actually applied to Rome for the recognition of all the Russian Orthodox Saints.

All were approved by Rome in 1904, save for a few who were strongly against the Union of Brest e.g. St Athanasius of Brest etc.

Today, those Byzantine Catholic Churches who have a high degree of Eastern theological perspective on things often include Orthodox Saints into their local Calendars.

Let us remember that Roman Catholic prelates themselves attend Orthodox canonization ceremonies and walk away with copies of the icons of the new Saints.

If the RC Church did not recognize Orthodox canonizations/glorifications, then why do RC prelates attend them, kiss their icons and otherwise participate in their liturgical celebration?

One can only assume that they do acknowledge the validity of Orthodox canonizations.

Otherwise, it would be taking ecumenism too far, don't you think?

Alex

>>>There is a book by Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, vol. 2, The Building of Christendom, which is "strongly" critical of the work by
Dvornik : Photian Schism. <<<

To be less diplomatic than my friend Brendan, for Dr. Carroll to criticize Dvornik is a lot like a hack piano player in a local orchestra criticizing Valdimir Horowitz for poor technique. Suffice to say that Dvornik's work is considered the standard against which others are judged, and that in comparison, Carroll's work comes up short.

Dear Alex,

Since you brought up the Ethiopian Catholic Church, saying that they have kept many of their saints "from the Orthodox days", do you know the status of this in the Syriac and Syro-Malankar Catholic Churches? I remember reading their liturgy, which is just about identical with the Orthodox one, except that they knocked out SS. Severios, Dioscoros, Philoxenos, Ivanios, and a bunch of others. Is there a reason why these shouldn't be recognised, or is this a latinisation waiting to be corrected?

Dear Catholicos Mor Ephrem,

These saints were excluded because of their condemnation by Byzantine councils, even though Dioscoros was never censured for his Orthodoxy, but for beating up St Flavian of Constantinople.

Others were excluded because they were teachers of the Oriental Orthodox Church, considered as "Monophysites" (really, they were Miaphysites).

St Philoxenus of Mabbugh especially was a man of great culture, learning and spiritual depth.

My own personal view is that these saints should quietly make their way back to the Syriac Catholic calendars and their names should be dropped from any liturgical anathema ceremonies.

One priest indicated to me that it was St Severus of Antioch who composed the prayer "O Only Begotten Son" in the Byzantine liturgy (or else insisted on its inclusion) as a way to "prove" to the Oriental Orthodox that the Byzantines were not Nestorians!

St Dioscoros was himself the nephew of St Cyril of Alexandria and defended his uncle's theology to the end, even during his exile in Paphlagonia.

The same is true of St Timothy Aelurus (the Cat), Patriarch of Alexandria.

God bless,

Alex

Stuart,

Excellent critique of Dr. Carroll and Fr. Francis Dvornik.

Didn't St. Photius, who is celebrated in our Church, die in communion with Rome?

Joe

Dear Joe,

Yes, indeed he did. But since the Pope John VIII said he always believed the Filioque to be a heresy, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the Pope died in communion with Photios and the Orthodox Catholic Church of the East that was always opposed to the Filioque?

God bless,

Alex

Dear Alex,

Mar Dioscoros beat up Mar Flavianos? Hmm...what happened there? Was this akin to Mar Nicolovos punching out Arius? And which Byzantine council(s) condemned the Oriental Orthodox saints? Were any of these councils among the Seven Ecumenical Councils you recognise?

Perhaps they were excluded for being teachers of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. But seeing as parts of these entered into communion with the Church of Rome, and considering that recent declarations from both Sees of Rome and Antioch say that there was never a difference in faith, just expression, I think they should all come back.

One day, maybe in that multi-liturgical edifice you dreamed of, we can all have a great big block party. Rite on...