Quote
Originally posted by StuartK:
>>>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 Stuart,
"Rome never errs"

I wish you could have a good dose of theology every morning along with your breakfast. Why do you make such statements! Of course Rome errs and admits it! What it "does not do is Err when speaking ex catherdra on matter related to faith and morals."

Please get the terminology right and do not misrepresent the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Stephanos