www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Dioscurus and Photios

Dear Friends,

This is a quick question for all you Church history buffs. A friend of mine recently asked me a question calling into question the sanctity of the Patriarch Photios. I have my own ideas about an answer to his objections but was interested in what I could learn from you all on this topic. This was his reply to me when I informed him that Photios was not on the Armenian Calendar:

"I am glad to hear that it is indeed a different Photius on your Armenian calendar. You may recall my saying that I had never sensed among any Armenians the same anti-Latin spirit shown by the Byzantine Greeks. And since the Armenians lacked any particular animus against Rome they would have had no reason to have any devotion to this Photius, who also came along long after the split between them and the Chalcedonian East and West, and, as far as I can see, was sainted by the Byzantines specifically for his fight with Rome. He was a great scholar, but I don't see in him holiness or exemplarity: I do see a Byzantine chauvinist, however, which leads us right back to my regular gripe about the Greeks: "They preferred to be Greeks rather than Christians." One wonders how the Byzantines explain why Photius is so great if they at the same time excoriate Dioscurus who according the the council of Chalcedon was deposed for doing the very thing that Photius is apparently lionized for doing. But perhaps the Greeks will say I am being "legalistic" in drawing these parallels?"

Well, there it is. What say you all? I'm particullarly interested in his comparison of the cases of Photios and Dioscurus. What do you think of this?

In Christ's Light,

Wm. DerGhazarian

Dear Ghazar,

I'm supposed to be off the Forum, but how can I be when you ask such interesting questions?!

Are you doing this just to provoke me?

The figures of St Photios and St Dioscoros are indeed controversial from the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox point of view respectively.

This matter has also come up for discussion among the theologians of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches during their ten year series of meetings and reports.

For years, Photios was seen by RC's as the haughty Eastern Patriarch who dared thumb his nose at the Roman Pope, initiating, it was/is thought the beginning estrangement of East from West.

The "original sin" of Photios in this regard was his alleged audacity in questioning the addition of the "Filioque" to the universal Creed by A Roman Pope.

This is how RC's saw Photios for centuries. Many still do. For the Byzantines to have canonized Photios meant, to them, that Photios was being honoured for his specifically "anti-Roman" actions, since the EO's are "anti-Roman" as well, being "dissidents" who "broke unity with the Chair of Peter at Rome."

But this view of history implies that the Papacy was then what it only truly became later in terms of absolute authority and the like.

We already discussed the issue of Pope Honorius and how an Ecumenical Council condemned him posthumously for his alleged acceptance of Monophysitism/Monothelism, a condemnation accepted by Rome itself.

It was suggested that that Ecumenical Council itself was "anti-Roman" because it had the temerity to condemn a pope.

The fact is that the Sixth Council was most enthusiastically supportive of the Chair of Peter and that it had no alternative at the time but to condemn a series of Patriarchs, Honorius included, for their implication with the heresy of Monothelism.

In fact, the Council ended with a remarkably lucid and candid statement of praise for Rome and the Pope and his connection with St Peter!

When Photios challenged the Pope of his day on the issue of the Filioque, he was NOT challenging the right of Elder Rome to its primacy, nor was he condemning Rome.

As Councils did before him, he was challenging a particular act being approved by a particular Pope.

He did not, let's reiterate, challenge the primacy of Rome in the universal Church in so doing.

In fact, as should be clear to all of us, he died in communion with Elder Rome with Pope John VIII exclaiming that he, as Pope, had ALWAYS held the Filioque to be heretical!

In fact, Photios himself had never gone as far as this Pope in this respect. He simply objected to imposing the Filioque in the universal Creed promulgated by the First Two Ecumenical Councils that specifically AND INFALLIBLY decreed that nothing could be added or subtracted from that Creed!

As we have seen, Photios' time would not have been the first time when a Pope was opposed on questions of faith. The later Robert Cardinal Bellarmine would actually draw up conditions under which it is LAWFUL and even INCUMBENT upon Catholics to oppose a Pope!

There is NOTHING in what Photios said or wrote that indicates he was against the Roman Primacy.

In fact, he died in communion with it, totally exonerated by Rome and affirmed as truly Orthodox and Catholic.

Anyone who, today, says otherwise is simply refusing to acknowledge the latest research on this question, research that is both official and that has never been called into question by the Vatican.

In fact, when the Pope of our times meets with the EP, he follows, TO THE LETTER, the practice of Pope John VIII when this pope met with Patriarch Photios.

Pope John Paul II, for instance, sits on an episcopal chair that is of EQUAL height to that of the Patriarch of New Rome.

When has the RC Church condemned Photios? Or otherwise chastised him in Council? When has a Pope pronounced ill of him following Pope John VIII?

Traditional RC's have tended to see in the Filioque the standard of orthodoxy for all times, while, in fact, the RC Church opposed it for much of the first Millennium of its existence.

Photios only did what all the Popes before him would have agreed with and what Pope John VIII of his own time certainly agreed with as well.

To want to see Photios as being somehow disconnected to the Church's tradition in this respect, East AND West, is historical revisionism at its worst.

Now, there is no doubt that later Eastern Orthodox leaders truly DID make Photios into a hero of "Anti-Roman" Orthodoxy. They too often overlook the fact that he reconciled with Rome once the Filioque issue was cleared up at that time.

But to be "anti-Photius" is to also be "anti-Pope St Leo II" during the issue of Monothelism and Pope Honorius.

Photius was canonized for his MANY theological writings and for his deep holiness. He was a hesychast and prayed unceasingly, performing many miracles, INCLUDING the miracle of the saving of the city of Constantinople from the then pagan forces of Rus'.

It was Patriarch Photius who had the vision and foresight to send Sts. Cyril and Methodius to the Slavs. Photius is truly one of the Fathers of Slavic Christianity, Western and Eastern!

Photius' holiness was so widely spread that even in the book, "Way of a Pilgrim" he is mentioned in passing by a simply peasant pilgrim acquainted with the spirituality of the Philokalia!

In every which way, St Photius is truly a Catholic saint, villified by centuries of Orthodox-Catholic mistrust and suspicion that is only now beginning to change.

St Dioscoros is the same story from the Byzantine Orthodox POV.

The difference is that Dioscoros never reconciled with the Byzantine/Roman Church that condemned him not for heresy, but for his actions at the Robber Synod. In this case, it was BOTH the Roman and Byzantine Churches, the "Western Church" from the Oriental POV, that condemned their Teacher and Father.

Such a condemnation can be lifted in the event of reunion, indeed it would have to be, just as Emperor Justinian, at one time, said it could.

Dioscoros died living a very holy monastic existence in Paphlagonia, a miracle-worker.

Enduring misunderstanding keeps Photius from being accepted in the West, while the very real matter of actual conciliar condemnation hangs over Dioscorus in the Byzantine Church tradition - and that of Rome too.

Certainly, ill feelings can continue despite prospects of reunion/improved ecumenical conditions etc.

And no Church need accept the saints of another.

That the two men were holy and saints is best determined by the liturgical cult paid to them in their respective Churches.

Historically, there is today a much more enlightened approach to them and other historically controversial figures.

Alex

Pozdrowiena, has someone brought my Spiritual Brother Alex back or is this a spirit ?

Can I rejoice in the Lord ?

I'm so excited I forgot what I was going to post.

In Christ,
James

Dear Alex,

No, I wasn't trying to entice you, because I didn't hear you had left. But I did have you in mind when I asked the question. I will miss your ellucidations and wisdom. Let's keep in touch, brother.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. DerGhazarian

p.s. Thanks for the great reply. I'll forward this to my friend for his consideration.

Just reminding that, whatever one's personal convictions may be, this is a matter of much debate and isn't crystal clear from either viewpoint.

ChristTeen287

Fair point, CT287, but Alex wasn't talking about the actual guilt or innocence of Honorious. Rather he was speaking of how the Eastern Churches did not understand a Pope's authority to be absolute at that time. Correct me if I'm wrong Alex. So the point would be that in their time, they considered it well within their authority to condemn in an ecumenical council, even a heretical Pope of Rome. Even the fact that they believed a Pope could be heretical is instructive, I think. But perhaps I'm putting words in Alex's mouth. I hope not.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. DerGhazarian

Alex, what "particular act" did Pope Nicholas make regarding the filioque? If, as I believe (since the filioque was not accepted in Rome until the eleventh century), the answer is none, then this part of your argument falls apart. Indeed Photius had a list reasons for excommunicating the Pope and the Latins including:
they fast on Saturday;
they do not begin Lent till Ash Wednesday;
they do not allow priests to be married;
they do not allow priests to administer confirmation;
they have added the filioque to the creed.
Of course the fact that Nicholas would not recognize his dubious ascension to the Patriarchal throne and considered his predecessor Ignatius as the lawful Patriarch might have been a factor as well. And perhaps Bulgaria. I think that your presentation that Photius was simply challenging some particular act of Nicholas regarding the filioque, lacks context, to say the very least. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm

This is not clear to me. I am aware of the existence of Fr. Dvornik's more contemporary writings on Photius, but have not gotten to read them yet. I am, in any case, by no means in a position to independently verify his conclusions, if indeed he makes them, on: whether or not Photius was again anathematized after the council that neither the Latins nor the Orthodox count as the eight ecumenical council; or the existence of and authenticity of any statement on the heretical nature of the filioque made by John VIII.

The latter point is an intereting one. At a recent seminar that I attended, given by an Orthodox hieromonk, the suggestion was made that the filioque was not heretical per se, until Florence when the "as one principle" explication was given. Fr. Romanides has made a similar point (but counts three different phases of the filioque). You yourself have argued against the any heresy in the filioque. So, what is your point on the alleged statement of John VIII?

This is not the first time that you have made such statement. Previously I asked that substantiate it by quoting the canons. You have not responded to my request. From what I have been able to track down, ISTM that your statement is woefully misleading and is in fact entirely incorrect.

If such a declaration were made at the first council in Nice, then the Constantinopolitans, who added a paragraph to, and subtracted "God from God" from the Nicean text, manifestly violated it. The Constantinopolitan addition was not read at Ephesus, where Canon VII states that "Any bishop who sets forth a faith other than that of Nice shall be an alien from the Church: if a layman do so let him be cast out." If this Canon meant "nothing" could be added or subtracted, then the delegates at Chalcedon, who read both the Nicean version and the Constantinopolitan version were manifestly in violation of the Canon VII of Ephesus.

In fact the Canons refer to proclaiming a different faith, rather than a formula of words.
A learned discourse on this point can be found here.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-83.htm#TopOfPage

I have read that the add or subtract nothing -"not a word" - as you have stated it in previous posts, is in the canons of the council that is generally not recognized as the eighth ecumenical council, but texts from this unrecognized council are hard to track down.

Dear djs,

If I am misleading anyone, I ask for forgiveness, as it is not my intention to do so!

I think that whether or not we have read Fr. Dvornik, it is important to note that there is no "objective" standard by which we can measure history, as you know.

So much of previous RC writing about Photios has been so biased, that it is next to impossible to get a clear picture of the man on that basis.

The same is true on the other said of the polemical coin with respect to Orthodox writings, although, to be fair, Photios is a saint of Orthodoxy and hagiographical writing in ANY Church is ever coldly objective for that reason.

To give some indication of what I mean with respect to RC writing on Photios, the New Advent Catholic Encyclopaedia, I believe, mentions a "legend" that a bishop predicted that Photios' mother would give birth to "an evil man" etc.

Then the encyclopaedia goes on to say that it rejects such stories! Then why mention it in a presumably scholarly encyclopaedia?

The article there condemns Photios as not only the instigator of the Photian schism, but also of the longer lasting schism between East and West!

And yet, that same article says that, apart from his relationship with Rome, Photios' personal life was very holy and above reproach, his faith was never shaken and that he would have been the last (?) and greatest of the Greek Fathers (I assume because after the Schism of 1054, according to this article's perspective, the Orthodox completely "fell from grace.")

Your point about the Photian Council is well taken. But the Church as a whole, dear brother, has always maintained that the conclusions of Councils are sacrosanct and that they CAN be changed, but only by another Council.

The introduction of the Filioque was approved locally in the Western Church without sanction from any such Ecumenical Council.

You imply that a Pope has the same power as an Ecumenical Council (do you not?) and that is what is hotly debated between East and West.

What Photios said in his "Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit" is EXACTLY what St Maximos the Confessor and St John of Damascus said regarding the procession of the Spirit from the Father alone, but through the Son.

The source of RC hatred for Photios is his refusal to obey the Pope over the matter of his patriarchal appointment, as you know well.

Was St Photios ambitious? It would not be the first time that a saint was.

The question is really, from the Orthodox Eastern POV to what extent was Pope Nicholas overextending his jurisdictional reach in the East by getting involved in Byzantine Church politics?

So if one assumes the standard RC view that papal triumphalism had triumphed over the East in the time of Photios and before, (that is a point of debate too), then Photios was clearly in the wrong.

Francis Dvornik, as an RC scholar, has restored a balance to the whole question.

I think we need to study his pioneering works, to be sure.

You are free to disagree with him or his perspective.

But is it not significant that an RC scholar of Fr. Dvornik's stature, in commenting on such a crucial matter that has divided East and West, has actually WON the admiration of many Orthodox for his efforts, even though they, of course, don't agree with all his conclusions?

I think Fr. Dvornik is to be congratulated!

BTW, you are also free to disagree with my own interpretation of that historical situation.

Although I'm a Catholic, I am definitely not infallible, nor do I feel the need to defend myself on every point of criticism you have made of my previous presentation.

But that "misleading" comment from you did give me a nasty twitch over my left eye

Alex

Thanks, William. I think we agree on what Alex meant, but I suppose we disgaree on what I meant. I mean to say that even that statement is up for debate- - -isn't it?

ChristTeen287

Dear Alex,

Sorry about the twitch. I certainly have no reason or intention to suspect your motivation, and regret my awkward writing that might be taken as suggesting otherwise.

I wish that someone well-versed in Fr. Dvornik's work could comment on it here. Reading about his work, it seems that it is universally respected, with greatest esteem. But there seems to be some disagreement on what he has said. Was there a second break between Photius and Rome? Some say Dvornik's work indicates no, others who reference Dvornik say yes.

There is an essay on-line by Dvornik, in which he claims that the way the affair played out reveals an adherence to the idea of a substantive Roman primacy and jurisdiction, while others view the affair as showing precisely the opposite.
http://www.petersnet.net/browse/1355.htm

I am also unclear on the details and validity of Photius's first ascent to the Patriarchal throne, the redacting of Pope John's letter by Photius, and the declarations of the Photian Council. All seemingly questions of objective fact that have become part of the hardly objective historical record.

More questions for church history buffs.

Dear djs,

No problem, I know all about awkward writing and the trouble it can get one into!

I also think that there is no such thing as an objective historical record, only subjective interpretations of historical events . . .

Dvornik maintained that Photios was NOT excommunicated by Rome a second time following his reconciliation with Pope John VIII.

I have since spoken with a visiting Catholic professor of canon law, who is also a bishop, who assures me that there is "no problem with Photios, he is a Catholic saint!"

The main thrust of the criticism toward him, as you rightly said, lies in: a) his ascendancy to the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople; and b) the Filioque/Rome issue.

His would not be the first case of "on-again, off-again" patriarchal appointment as a result of political chicanery by the Emperors.

That was the stuff of which Byzantine Imperial life was made.

Detractors of Photios seem to want to say that he always had Imperial backing - and we know he always DIDN'T have such backing. Emperor Michael, as we know, hated Photios and wanted his own candidate to replace him.

Rome was, at this time especially, blissfully ignorant of the way that Church and State were run at Constantinople - a point that Dvornik makes forcefully in at least two of his books.

The whole view of "synergy" between Emperor and Patriarch, Church and State - the Emperor had a quasi-religious status with respect to calling Councils together and defending the Church.

Photios was as much at the mercy of the Imperial Court as was Ignatius and their predecessors.

If anything, once Rome began to intervene, the Imperial Court, that was not above using Rome and otherwise having influence over it at other times, felt Rome was meddling in its own church and state affairs.

The "Errors of the Latins" you mention was a consistent and ever-growing list that the East kept.

The fasting on Saturday, while appearing insignificant to us today, was a big deal then because it represented a flexing of papal muscle over the decrees of Ecumenical Councils (that forbade it) - and that was a no-no even by the estimation of many saintly Popes of Rome.

Adding the Filioque was a no-no FOR THE SAME REASON. All the "Errors of the Latins" had as their basic root the fact that they were instances when the Pope was going beyond his universally accepted "Primacy of Honour" and was acting unilaterally, outside an Ecumenical Council, in a way that smacked of jurisdictional supremacy that the East never admitted - although it did allow for recourse to Rome by way of "court of final appeal."

What St Photios wrote in his Errors contained nothing that other Eastern hierarchs or councils did not haul Rome up on the carpet for previously.

Even St John of Damascus, in his "De Fide Orthodoxa," states emphatically that "We do not teach that the Spirit proceeds from the Son."

Photios, in his Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, simply repeated what St John and St Maximus said in this regard.

If anything, he seemed to go beyond the two mentioned Fathers as he affirmed that "The Spirit is said to be 'of the Son' also since He proceeds through the Son."

While Latins have always castigated him for his denial of the Filioque, had they read his work more closely, they would have seen that Photios comes CLOSER to the Western theological opinion than ANY OTHER Eastern Father - ever!

The point on the Filioque not being heretical - the Eastern Church has ALWAYS admitted an "Orthodox Filioque" as Seraphim Rose said, but only in "Economic terms" that is, that the Spirit is "Sent by the Father AND the Son into the world."

It only became heretical when the Franks, not known for their theological prowess, asserted that this ALSO meant that the Spirit proceeded from Both the Father and the Son in terms of the internal relations of the Trinity.

Again, even the greatest Latin detractors of Photios admit his great personal holiness. The rest is really due to misunderstanding on their part and also to their determined effort to see papal jurisdictional supremacy as existing throughout the worldwide undivided Orthodox and Catholic Church of Christ from the very beginnings of its existence - that is unsubstantiable and RC theologians today are generally agreed in saying that that is most certainly an exaggeration.

I wonder what some of our Orthodox posters here have to say about these issues?

Have I offended or else misrepresented the Orthodox arguments?

Alex

Dear Alex,

So the whole episode is mysterious to me. The essay by Dvornik posted above, ISTM, makes the point that whatever, Photius was up to with his first salvo against Nicholas, it should not be considered as being aimed against the Papacy, its primacy, or its jurisdiction in the matter at hand. In fact, he argues that this episode was a watershed in Constantinople's acceptance of papal primacy and juridiction. If he is right on this point, then just what was he doing? The Errors of the Latins do not appear to target Nicholas, who ruled against him. Being aimed at the entire West, it can be perhaps understood as an argument about why the West, with its questionable ways, should be kept out of Bulgaria. I still don't quite get the story, what the fuss is about, or how Dvornik, at least from the posted essays, seems to resolve anything.

Dear djs,

Actually, you are right, Dvornik doesn't solve everything.

Orthodox commentators on his work have pointed out that Dvornik also assumes too much about papal jurisdiction, although he does say that acceptance of such was non-existent in the East - universal jurisdiction was all in the minds of the popes and was never accepted by the East.

You are right that this was less of a fuss at the time than it turned out to be, only because of the dynamics of later polemics that turned to Photios and made him into something he was not - a symbol, at once, of Anti-Latin feeling and, as far as the RC church was concerned, the man who originated the East-West schism.

Wrong on both counts.

It all had to do with a conflict of two different emerging ecclesiologies, East and West, with Photios, the Filioque et al. the symbols of the different traditions and their ensuing struggle.

That's how I see it.

I don't pretend to be a theologian et al. So I'll leave it at that!

Alex

reply:
I don't know exactly what you mean. My point was the following: "So the point would be that in their time, they considered it well within their authority to condemn in an ecumenical council, even a heretical Pope of Rome. Even the fact that they believed a Pope could be heretical is instructive, I think."

Which point do think is up for debate?

1. That the Eastern Churches actually meant to (and did) condemn Pope Honorius?

2. That they believed he was heretical?

To my knowledge, no one denies this.

Neither.

I was under the impression that Alex's comment about Rome itself accepting this conclusion was up for debate. I know we had a discussion on all this about a month ago.

ChristTeen287