www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Fathers/Primacy/Peter/Rome - Part I

Brian, my Brother in Christ, I am NOT trying to move you from that which you believe, nor am I trying to unsettle your faith. But as for me and my household, we serve in the original Catholic Church called the Orthodox/Catholic Church established by Christ upon the Apostles. The term Catholic and Orthodox were always interchangebale until Rome broke from Holy Orthodoxy. As for where is a Catholic Church, Catholic, besides universal, means wholeness --- wholeness in doctrine and truth. Christ is not divided because His people are divided.
There still remains but one Faith one Lord and one Baptism. I honor the Patriarch of the West as I honor all Patriarchs. I have a special fondness for many who sat on the Roman Patriarchal throne, but I do not give them an importance they really do not have.
As for Blessed Augustine being your defense,
therein lies the problem in great measure.
I remain with love your Brother in Christ.

Orthodoxophilos wrote:

"The Roman [i.e. Catholic] view of the office of the Pope fails the Vincentian test in flying colors, I'm afraid. The current Roman conception of the papacy is not, and never was, universally accepted or taught, is not ancient (even the Roman theologians admit that it was a "development" as they call it) and does not have the consent/approval of the rest of the Church outside the Roman patriarchate. It is not universal, ancient or consensual. It misses the point to say that the Roman theologians can come up with this or that source to back up their claims -- the historical fact is that in they early Church this office did not exist in the way the Roman Church eventually defined it, and when the Roman Popes tried to "flex their muscles" in this regard, they met with uniform resistance -- thereby making it clear that this was not, and is not, a universal or consensual doctrine."

Four responses:

1. Your consistent use of the term Roman for the Catholic Church suggests you are overly influenced by Western Protestant terminology.

2. What is the definition of universal? Consensus among all Christians? Episcopacy wouldn't pass that test with Presbyterian and Baptist objection? Consensus among the world's bishops? 5/6ths of them are in communion with Rome, let's take a vote!

3. The resistance to the development of the office of the Pope came overwhemingly from the civil authorities who feared the loss of their control over the local church. Are you defending Ceasaro-papism?

4. I think Catholics should admit that while we beleive the Petrine Ministry is authorized in Scripture and Tradition, both of these sources of Revelation give it very little definition. It is a ministry that, based on the needs of the Church at a particular time and in a particular situation can wax and wane. You can cal this development if you will. I do find it odd, however, that some can view the Papacy as totally without a divine mandate yet defend the rights and powers of the Patriarchates, that are clearly without any divine mandate.

Dear Brother in Christ, Kurt,

As far as your response to Orthodoxophilus:

1.) The discussion here is centering around the role of the Roman See and so it is natural, but not necessarily accurate to use Roman Catholic with regards to this discussion. I'm sure no offense was intended.

2.) Let's bring the discussion down to a more realistic level and take the Presbyterians and Baptists off the table. Consensus is a difficult thing to gauge in the "model" of the Orthodox Church. Much is placed in the hands of the laity to adhere to whatever is decided at the hierarchical level. The ill-fated reunion councils of the 13th and 15th centuries were rejected due to the laity and the monks of Mt. Athos.

3.) The objections to the growth in papal power did not come from just the civil authorities. I believe in the 9th (10th?) century Rome started asserting a right to approve or depose the occupants of other patriarchal sees. Rome recognizes an eighth "ecumenical" council as the one that deposed Photius from the See of Constantinople. It was more than just the Byzantine civil authorities that rejected this interference into the internal matters of another patriarchal see.

4.) The Orthodox do not deny that the role of the Petrine See is a special one within the Church. They simply believe that there are limits to what it can do within that role. Patriarchal sees simply exist as aids to church governance. The power is greater because the flock is bigger. The bishop is never re-ordained to a metropolitan or patriarchal see. The charism is that from his original ordination as bishop. To lump the Orthodox in with those that deny a special role to the See of Rome in untrue as well as unkind.

Hi Kurt,

Thanks, Bill Mo, for your clarifying post. I have similar responses for the record below.

"Your consistent use of the term Roman for the Catholic Church suggests you are overly influenced by Western Protestant terminology."

Not really. The doctrine of the universal supremacy and infallibility comes from one patriarchate � the Roman. It is �Roman� as opposed to �Catholic� � �particular� as opposed to �universal�. That is all I meant by saying �Roman�. On the other hand, it is clearly misleading to throw around patristic quotes that use the word �Catholic� in them without explaining that this word had a different meaning in the patristical era than the secrarian meaning it has acquired today. And it further muddies the issue to conflate the two together. I therefore refuse to use the word �Catholic� in this particular discussion because we are too apt to confuse and conflate the sectarian meaning of the word with the patristical/creedal meaning.

"What is the definition of universal? Consensus among all Christians? Episcopacy wouldn't pass that test with Presbyterian and Baptist objection? Consensus among the world's bishops? 5/6ths of them are in communion with Rome, let's take a vote!"

How can it be more clear? Universal/Catholic means that which was believed everywhere, always, by all. That is the test. Kurt, judging by your references here I do believe you are either not understanding what St. Vincent of Lerins says, or that you are deliberately trying to mislead � but, of course, I�ll give you the benefit of the doubt on this. You�re attempting to take all of the developments in the last 1000 years in the West and apply the Vincentian test to the situation as it exists today � to somehow �ratify� them all, even though they did not develop in an ecumenical manner. This approach igores one of the central elements of the Vincentian test: �antiquity�. The critical issue is �universality, antiquity,consent� � all three. It�s not simply a majority vote at any point in time � but whether or not the doctrine was believed everywhere, always, and by all � not whether or not most believe it today. If that were the test, then the Iconoclasts ought to have prevailed, because they were in the majority for quite some time in the Church. Therefore your reference to the Protestant beliefs is inapposite -- the Presbytarians and Baptists can prattle on all they like about the episcopacy, but their views fail the �universality, antiquity, consent� test, and are therefore not Catholic. Similarly, one cannot with a straight face simply say �well, now the Roman Catholic Church is big enough so that we can outnumber everyone else� and use this to ignore the witness of antiquity and consent � that falls into the same trap that the Iconoclasts did � the majority were iconoclasts, but that did not make them right or make their doctrine Catholic. As applied to the doctrine of Papal supremacy, it is clear that this was not adopted by the Church as a whole following the criteria of �universality, antiquity, consent� but that it was advanced by one Patrirachate and resisted by the others. It was not, and is not, therefore, a universal doctrine.

"The resistance to the development of the office of the Pope came overwhemingly from the civil authorities who feared the loss of their control over the local church. Are you defending Ceasaro-papism?"

I think you�re oversimplifying. The imperial authorities were actually more supportive of Papal authority, on a whole, than they were of the Patriarchs of Constantinople. For example, if it weren�t for collusion between the Emperor and the Pope, the Photian issue, the first time when the issue of Papal supremacy was really raised by the Roman Patriarchate, would not have played out the way it did. On the whole, in fact, the Eastern Patriarchs were often at odds with the Emperor, and many were exiled as a result of this. And many of these were subsequently glorified by the Church, in spite of their death in imperial exile. The Emperors viewed the renewal of Christian unity as an extension of their own secular power (or a means of shoring it up), and, if anything, wished reunion to occur � in spite of the theological differences, which did not interest many of the Emperors very much. Remember, the reunion councils of Lyon and Florence were both heavily pushed by the Emperors, at the expense of the Eastern Patriarchs. The old saw of the Eastern Patriarchs� separation from Rome being the result of secular political intrigue is not in accordance with the fact that it was the Byzantine Emperor who is often seen opposing the Eastern Patriarchs, taking the side of the Pope, and promoting potential reunion under the Pope.

I'm not certain about this, but if you in fact intended to refer to the Church under Islam, that�s quite a different story as well. Constantinople itself did not fall to Islam until well after the dispute with Rome about the Pope had been in full bloom, and therefore the attitudes of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the other non-Middle Eastern Churches, toward the Papal supremacy were not, at least until the collapse of Constantinople, informed by the Islamic authorities.

"I think Catholics should admit that while we beleive the Petrine Ministry is authorized in Scripture and Tradition, both of these sources of Revelation give it very little definition. It is a ministry that, based on the needs of the Church at a particular time and in a particular situation can wax and wane. You can cal this development if you will. I do find it odd, however, that some can view the Papacy as totally without a divine mandate yet defend the rights and powers of the Patriarchates, that are clearly without any divine mandate."

First of all, the only office that is divinely mandated is that of Bishop. The rest of it � be it Patriarch or Pope � is not of divine origin. So, given that the episcopate itself was divinely instituted, who among the Orthodox say that the Bishop of Rome is not entitled to a �Primacy�? The Orthodox claim no such thing. The Orthodox simply affirm that the Primacy of the Roman Bishop has a meaning � an ecumenical meaning � that was accepted, in practice, in the Early Church as the �primacy in love�, and not a hierarchical supremacy. It means that when the Bishop of Rome speaks, he is entitled to be listened to, and given great attention by his brother Bishops � but not uncritical acceptance. He has the power, by virtue of the prestige of his office, to persuade, to bring together, to act, in love, among the brethren Bishops � but not to force, unilaterally, their adoption of his ideas against their own will. That is the difference�Primacy, yes, Supremacy, no.

Orthodoxophilos


[This message has been edited by Orthodoxophilos (edited 06-16-99).]

I understand that no offense was meant by the use of the term Roman. However, since belief in the Petrine Ministry is held by bishops and laity, eastern and western, of those other sees in communion with Rome, it seems proper to use the term Catholic so not to falsely suggest this is the exclusive claim of one See.

The statement "the role of the Petrine See is a special one within the Church. They simply believe that there are limits to what it can do within that role" is one the Catholic Church easily accepts.

With Catholics acknowledging that the operation of the Petrine Ministry can adapt to various times and situations and the Orthodox accepting that it exists, the two are not all that far apart. What needs to come next is not a silly debate as to what the past situation was but what would be best for the Church in the future.

It might truthfully be said that in the early Church, the Pope held the maximum possible authority he could excerize given the limits of technology, communications and transportation at the time. In other words, not a whole lot.

If there is no authority that is accepted as valid and by all members of the faithful, then that Church would split apart.
Look at Protestantism. There are over 25,000 Protestant churches. the only thing they can agree on is that the Catholic Church is wrong. Of course, the take an instrument of the Catholic Church - the Bible - and contort it to make that claim.
Orthodoxy may believe that the Petrine See is first among equals and not in a position of authority. That's why there was a schism in the first place. There has to be someone in charge here on earth. The Orthodox have frequently been co-opted by imperialist and, later, Communist governments (mostly through no fault of its own). While the Catholic Church was frequently seen as a part of repressive government (during the French Revolution many Catholic religous were put to death, for example) in later times the Catholic Church stood up to Communism (see Poland). The Orthodox complied in taking Eastern Catholic parishes and property in the former Soviet Union. Maybe, because there was not one central Orthodox leader who spoke out or who could speak out against such aggression.
Although the Orthodox apologists put up some pretty good posts here, don't expect the Catholic hierarchy to accept any of them.
Except for the filioque (maybe) we ain't changin nuthin'.
I really don't believe there is going to be any Catholic-Orthodox reunification anytinme soon. We all spend too much time debating our differences and not talking about what we have in common - myself included.

To get back to what Brian Kennedy said
�In section four he addresses the issue of the power of the keys and explains that "Surely the rest of the Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership office and power, but the beginning proceeds from unity..." St. Peter was a sign of unity. It would seem to me that every ship needs a Captain and Peter was made the Captain of this new ship to be the sign of unity . Peter was not isolated in the exercise of his authority as we see at Jerusalem�
The Catholic Catechism says� When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted them in the form of col1ege or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from amongst them. Just as by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another.
The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his
Church He gave him the keys of his Church, and instituted him shepherd of the
whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was
also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head. This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

I would submit this is a lot of similarities in both of these positions.

Orthodoxophilos you wrote
Catholic", in the patristical era, the era of the councils and the creed, meant, and still does mean, that which is universally held. St. Vincent of Lerins explained it well already in the 5th Century: "Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense 'Catholic' which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent

This is subjective and all very well when you and I agree however if a third person disagrees with us then your Vincentarian test falls down. Such was the case with North African Church�s not recognising
Fourth Ecumenical Council: Chalcedon (451). Each side blaming the other of heresy. They consider themselves as truly Catholic, but not us.
Anyway who is this St Vincent Lerins I cannot find him in my list of Church Fathers.

You also wrote, �The Roman view of the office of the Pope fails the Vincentian test in flying colours, I'm afraid. The current Roman conception of the papacy is not, and never was, universally accepted or taught, is not ancient (even the Roman theologians admit that it was a "development" as they call it) and does not have the consent/approval of the rest of the Church outside the Roman patriarchate. It is not universal, ancient or consensual�

Your position is not supported by reputable Church Historians even Protestants ones agree with the Catholic position as regards the Bishop of Rome having universal jurisdiction over the early Church

You also wrote tin response to Kurt �The imperial authorities were actually more supportive of Papal authority, on a whole, than they were of the Patriarchs of Constantinople. For example, if it weren�t for collusion between the Emperor and the Pope, the Photian issue, the first time when the issue of Papal supremacy was really raised by the Roman Patriarchate, would not have played out the way it did.�
Firstly to say this is the � first time when the issue of Papal supremacy was really raised by the Roman Patriarchate,�
Is truly mindbogling, and easily proven wrong.
Secondly below is what happened;

"When he succeeded his father Theophilus (829-842) he was only three years old; he grew to be the wretched boy known in Byzantine history as Michael the Drunkard (ho methystes). Theodora, at first regent, retired in 856, and her brother Bardas succeeded, with the title of C�sar. Bardas lived in incest with his daughter-in-law Eudocia, wherefore the Patriarch Ignatius (846-57) refused him Holy Communion on the Epiphany of 857. Ignatius was deposed and banished (Nov. 23, 857), and the more pliant Photius was intruded into his place. He was hurried through Holy Orders in six days; on Christmas Day, 857, Gregory Asbestas of Syracuse, himself excommunicate for insubordination by Ignatius, ordained Photius patriarch. By this act Photius committed three offences against canon law: he was ordained bishop without having kept the interstices, by an excommunicate consecrator, and to an already occupied see. To receive ordination from an excommmunicate person made him too excommunicate ipso facto.
After vain attempts to make Ignatius resign his see, the emperor tried to obtain from Pope Nicholas I (858-67) recognition of Photius by a letter grossly misrepresenting the facts and asking for legates to come and decide the question in a synod. Photius also wrote, very respectfully, to the same purpose (Hergenr�ther, "Photius", I, 407-11). The pope sent two legates, Rodoald of Porto and Zachary of Anagni, with cautious letters. The legates were to hear both sides and report to him. A synod was held in St. Sophia's (May, 861). The legates took heavy bribes and agreed to Ignatius's deposition and Photius's succession. They returned to Rome with further letters, and the emperor sent his Secretary of State, Leo, after them with more explanations (Hergenr�ther, op. cit., I, 439-460). In all these letters both the emperor and Photius emphatically acknowledge the Roman primacy and categorically invoke the pope's jurisdiction to confirm what has happened. Meanwhile Ignatius, in exile at the island Terebinth, sent his friend the Archimandrite Theognostus to Rome with an urgent letter setting forth his case (Hergenr�ther, I, 460-461). Theognostus did not arrive till 862. Nicholas, then, having heard both sides, decided for Ignatius, and answered the letters of Michael and Photius by insisting that Ignatius must be restored, that the usurpation of his see must cease (ibid, I, 511-16, 516-19). He also wrote in the same sense to the other Eastern patriarchs (510-11). From that attitude Rome never wavered: it was the immediate cause of the schism. In 863 the pope held a synod at the Lateran in which the two legates were tried, degraded, and excommunicated. The synod repeats Nicholas's decision, that Ignatius is lawful Patriarch of Constantinople; Photius is to be excommunicate unless he retires at once from his usurped place."
You see from this that Photius was a tool of the emprial family and no man of God

Brian I,

First, Vincent of Lerins was a 5th century Gallican monastic. You should be able to find him in the Catholic Encyclopedia easily. The fact that there are those who have been excommunicated from the Church does not do violence to the Vincentian canon � in fact, it confirms it. When the Church gathers in council, it affirms the Faith � witnessing to the ancient, universal Truth, and witnessing in a consensual manner. The fact that there may be some who disagree does not do violence to the principle � in other words, one can�t say �the principle doesn�t work because there are always some who disagree and therefore consensus is never present�. St. Vincent never said that unanimity was required (he was writing, after all, in the 5th Century, after some of the excommunicating councils had been convened and rendered their decisions) � but simply that a vast consensus is required to bear witness to the antiquity and universality of the Truth. Sure, the non-Chalcedonians think that they are right � as do the Baptists and Presbytarians, mentioned in Kurt�s earlier post. But, in each case, their viewpoint is not attested to by antiquity, universality and consent. In any case, the Papal claims are inapposite here � having never been submitted to an ecumenical council for affirmation.

======

Thank for your slanted portrayal of the Photian situation, taken from the records of Western historians. I will now provide, for the record, what heppened in Orthodox eyes.

In 858, the Emperor deposed Ignatius, and Photius was appointed as Archbishop of Constantinople. Photius notified the Roman See (and the others as well), as was customary, of his accession to the See of Constantinople. The Pope Nicholas, in light of the irregularities concerning Photius� accession, decided to investigate the matter further, and dispatched legates to Constantinople to conduct this investigation. This was welcomed by the Emperor and the Patriarch, as they hoped that a resolution to the matter would calm the turbulence that this issue was causing in the Byzantine Church.

The Papal legates were received cordially and a synod was convened in Constantinople to settle the succession issue. This council decided that Photius was the legitimate Archbishop in 861. When the legates returned, Nicholas was furious that they had confirmed the accession of Photius, and retried the matter in 863, on his own authority, in Rome, among Latin Bishops � coming to the conclusion he had desired in the first place � that Photius was to be deposed and Ignatius restored. The Byzantine Church ignored this Papal action, and in fact never implemented it, and at that point an open breach existed between Rome and Constantinople.

Why did Nicholas do this? Nicholas was one of the first Popes to openly claim �jurisdiction� over the Eastern Church, saying, for example, that the Pope has authority �over all the Earth, that is, over every Church�. The dispute between Photius and Ignatius gave Nicholas a �golden opportunity� to try this in practice, by exerting his power to influence, or directly choose, who would be the Bishop of an Eastern See. The plan backfired, however, when Nicholas� legates agreed to the synod in Constantinople, because it was clear to everyone that this was voluntarily accepted by Photius, and could not, therefore, be used to assert direct jurisdiction. In addition, the Council of Sardica in 343 specifically recognized the right of appeal to the Roman See, and that the Pope could order a retrial of a referred matter, but specifically states that this retrial is to be conducted by the local Bishops in the area concerned � and not in Rome by the Pope himself!

Therefore, what happened in Constantinople was actually in accord with the Conciliar canons governing this type of dispute and appeal. Of course, this was not to Nicholas� taste, because he was not interested in what the conciliar canons said about this, but was interested in using this instance to extend his own power � and the Constantinopolitan synod, based as it was on existing conciliar canons, could not credibly be used as a basis for claiming enhanced power by the Pope. So, Nicholas pushed the issue by conducting another trial, himself, in Rome, among Latin Bishops � all in direct contradiction to the conciliar canons. He did this specifically to demonstrate that he, in his own mind, was not bound by those canons, and that he could exercise his jurisdiction as he saw fit.

The Byzantines, for their part, ignored Nicholas� unilateral decision. Photius, in fact, remained Archbishop of Constantinople up until 867 � although relations with Rome were extremely chilly. During the intervening period, the Byzantines and Latins (German missionaries, actually) were rubbing elbows in the Balkans, and the issue of filioque began to take on a new life � since the Latin and Byzantine missionaries were teaching different forms of the creed to their flocks. In Bulgaria, the situation was worsened by the fact that the Bulgarian Khan Boris wished to placate his Byzantine neighbors by becoming a Byzantine Christian, but he also wanted the Bulgarian Church to be independent of Constantinople � something that was premature, in the eyes of Constantinople. When Boris turned to the Latin Church, the German missionaries began to come in, in force, and brought with them the filioque � which, together with the other differences between East and West at the time, they advocated forcefully and with a lot of criticism of the Eastern practices. This was done with the full approval and support of the Pope � even though, at the time, the filioque was not, in fact, in use at Rome itself. Here we see Nicholas again taking advantage of an opportunity to stretch his power � this time, not in Constantinople itself, but right next door.

Photius then wrote his famous encyclical letter condemning the filioque in 867 � as it was now being widely used in areas close to the Byzantine Church. A (admittedly non-ecumenical) council was called in Constantinople which excommunicated Pope Nicholas I as a heretic. Shortly thereafter, Emperor Michael changed his mind about Photius, and deposed him (so much for his being a tool of the imperial family). Michael, while fundamentally disinterested in the theological issues involved, was rather alarmed at the political implications of this breach with Rome � since this seemed to present a more serious breach than the existing situation. Emperor Michael restored Ignatius to the See in 867. In 869, a council was held in Constantinople whicvh anethematized Photius and condemned the decisions taken in 867. This council is considered by the Latin Church as the 8th Ecumenical Council � but is not considered so by the East (it started with 12 bishops and ended with 103).

The plot then thickened concerning the Bulgarian Church � in 870, Emperor Michael determined that the Church would be a part of the Constantinopolitan See, and Khan Boris accepted this decision. The German missionaries were expelled from Bulgaria and the filioque was supressed there. In the subsequent period, Ignatius and Photius reconciled with each other, and upon Ignatius� death in 877, Photius succeeded him, again, as Archbishop. In 879, another council was held � this time, reversing the decisions of the 869 council, anathematizing that council, and essentially restoring the earlier decisions of 867. The 879 council, while also not ecumenical, was much larger (383 Bishops) and more representative than the 869 council. At the end of the day, Rome did not protest against the decisions taken by the 879 council.

In summary, what we can gather from this tortured tale is:

1. Pope Nicholas was principally interested in aggrandizing his own power, and was quite willing to use the opportunities created by ecclesiastical strife and Byzantine secular political interests to further his own agenda.
2. The Photian accession was appealed to the Pope and resolved by a council in Constantinople following the rules set forth in the canons of the Council of Sardica.
3. Nicholas� subsequent efforts to unilaterally depose Photius were not in accordance with the conciliar canons, and were therefore ignored by the Eastern Church.
4. Nicholas was so interested in extending his own power that he willing to use even matters of Church doctrine, such as the filioque, to extend his own power, territorially, at the expense of Constantinople � provoking a dispute over the filioque which ought never have happened, since this novelty was not even in use in Rome at the time.

Orthodoxophilos

Im afraid even the Orthodox revisionist history of events you quote condemns themselves

You admit �In 858, the Emperor deposed Ignatius, and Photius was appointed as Archbishop of Constantinople�
A temporal power such as the Emperor has no power to dispose a Bishop from his see. So Photius could not succeed to a see that was not vacant. You do not contradict that Photius was illicitly ordained by an excommunicated Bishop, which in effect bans him from office.
The Vatican has the Emperors and Photius letters in their archives. They support the slanted �Western view�
They appeal to the Pope for him to confirm Photius. The two letters clearly acknowledge that they were appealing to a higher authority, the Bishop of Rome� Only the Bishop of Rome has the Power to �confirm the brethren� this power was given to Peter by Christ when he said to him �Confirm (which means ratify) the brethren�, in this case verify the legitimacy of a Bishop. No irregular council has the power to overrule him, it can only advise.

You say
�Shortly thereafter, Emperor Michael changed his mind about Photius, and deposed him (so much for his being a tool of the imperial family).�
In Fact Basil 1st ejected him
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 form 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,.


[This message has been edited by Brian Ingram (edited 06-17-99).]

Confirm the brethern means to strengthen the brethern. In NO sense does it mean ratify the licitness of their Epsicopate. This is reading back into the text what some would want it to say which is in opposiiton to what it does say.

I find the "byzantine" intrique of the events noted in these lasts posts to say the least, very intriguing ...and actually helpful in understanding how things got to be the way they are. But I also find these events very sad and the dialogue somewhat disturbing. As has been said by Dr. John and others throughout many of the topics, "salvation is local." And I might add, it's here and now.

Removed from Memory... Committed to Oblivion!

Following is the text of the joint Catholic- Orthodox declaration, approved by Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople, read simultaneously (December 7, 1965) at a public meeting of the ecumenical council in Rome and at a special ceremony in Istanbul. The declaration concerns the Catholic-Orthodox
exchange of excommunications in 1054.

1. Grateful to God, who mercifully favored them with a fraternal meeting at those holy places where the mystery of salvation was accomplished through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and where the Church was born through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I have not lost sight of the determination each then felt to omit nothing thereafter which charity might inspire and which could facilitate the development of the fraternal relations thus taken up between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church of Constantinople. They are persuaded that in acting this way, they are responding to the call of that divine grace which today is leading the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, as well as all Christians, to overcome their differences in order to be again "one" as the Lord Jesus asked of His Father for them.

2. Among the obstacles along the road of the development of these fraternal relations of confidence and esteem, there is the memory of the decisions, actions and painful incidents which in 1054 resulted in the sentence of excommunication leveled against the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and two other persons by the legate of the Roman See under the leadership of Cardinal Humbertus, legates who then became the object of a similar sentence pronounced by the patriarch and the Synod of Constantinople.

3. One cannot pretend that these events were not what they were during this very troubled period of history. Today, however, they have been judged more fairly and serenely. Thus it is important to recognize the excesses which accompanied them and later led to consequences which, insofar as we can judge, went much further than their authors had intended and foreseen. They had directed their censures against the persons concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople.

4. Since they are certain that they express the common desire for justice and the unanimous sentiment of charity which moves the faithful, and since they recall the command of the Lord: "If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brethren has something against you, leave your gift before the altar and go first be reconciled to your brother" (Matthew 5.23-24), Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod, in common agreement, declare that:

A. They regret the offensive words, the reproaches without foundation, and the reprehensible gestures which, on both sides, have marked or accompanied the sad events of this period.

B. They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.

C. Finally, they deplore the preceding and later vexing events which, under the influence of various factors�among which, lack of understanding and mutual trust�eventually led to the effective rupture of ecclesiastical communion.

5. Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod realize that this gesture of justice and mutual pardon is not sufficient to end both old and more recent differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

Through the action of the Holy Spirit those differences will be overcome through cleansing of hearts, through regret for historical wrongs, and through an efficacious determination to arrive at a common understanding and expression of the faith of the Apostles and its demands.

They hope, nevertheless, that this act will be pleasing to God, who is prompt to pardon us when we pardon each other. They hope that the whole Christian world, especially the entire Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church will appreciate this gesture as an expression of a sincere desire shared in common for reconciliation, and as an invitation to follow out in a spirit of trust, esteem and mutual charity the dialogue which, with Gods help, will lead to living together again, for the greater good of souls and the coming of the kingdom of God, in that full communion of faith, fraternal accord and sacramental life which existed among them during the first thousand years of the life of the Church.

Kyrie eleison!

Dear Brian K
Meaning of the word �confirm� (From Microsoft Thesaurus)
Corroborate, ratify, and strengthen
Synonym of the word
Corroborate, establish, verify, bear out, resolve, authenticate, and substantiate

Meaning of the word �strengthen� (MC Thesaurus)
Make stronger, encourage, substantiate (substantiate of course means to verify, authenticate, confirm)

Synonym of the word strengthen (MC thesaurus)
Fortify reinforce, empower, restore

I respectfully submit to the other Brian that in the Scriptures, the Microsoft definition of confirm is not valid. To confirm the brethern always means to strength the brethern and does not imply a judicial decision or authority to determine who is and who is not a licit Bishop.English was not the language you should be exploring. This is the kind of thinking that brought Rome to the sad state of heresy and schism in which she finds herself today.

Having said that, I would like to move on to another area of this same discussion. Often I have heard it said that the office of Patriarch is not divinely instituted. In a sense that is true, but in another sense it may be less true. It would appear that our Lord made Peter the Patriarch over the other Bishops. Of course, Peter's successors have exaggerated this beyound belief and have assumed an authoirty and infallibility they do not have but the concept would to me seem valid. As our Patriarchs are Primary Bishop among equal Bishops, it is possible that the Patriarchs could accept the successor to Peter in Rome as Primary Patriarch among equal Patriarchs. Of course, this would not give the Patriarch in Rome authority to depose or select Patriarchs but the Patriarch in Rome could serve as arbiter in differences among Patriarchs with the permission and within the confines of the authority acknowledged by the Patriarchs. I have no problem, personally, with accepting the Pope as a Patriarch or even as Patriarch of the West. Of course truth demands that I condemn the expanded doctrines of Rome which are merely human teachings presented as if they were the teaching of God and condemn the exaggerated claims to authority of the Popes, but the Bishop of Rome is still the Patriarch of the West. This does not give him authority to make decisions which are most properly the domain of local Bishops
but he is not without authority. The fact that the see of the Western Patriarch is officially is schism limits his authority and damages his credibility as a witness for truth. The fact that the See of Peter now teaches heresy along side of truth reduces what ever acceptance we should give him.
I'm not sure what his authority would be
but he still has the title. I would be interested in some thoughts on what authority a Patriarch would have that is in schism and has gone over to heresy in some (not most) areas.

Sorry Brian K
But �confirm� in English primary means to ratify.
In the Bible �confirm� also means to ratify
Esau confirms the sale of his birthright by (Ge 25:33). Jacob confirms the covenant between him and Laban by (Ge 31:53 The Israelites confirm the covenant with the Hivites (Jos 9:3-20). Moses covenants with Caleb by (Jos 14:9). The elders of Gilead confirm their pledge to Jephthah by (Jdg 11:10). Jonathan and David confirm a covenant by (1Sa 20:3,13-17). (2Sa 3:35). Joab confirms his word by (2Sa 19:7). David swears to Bathsheba that Solomon confirms his word by (1Ki 2:23), so also does Shimei (1Ki 2:42). Elisha seals his vow to follow Elijah by (2Ki 2:2). King of Samaria confirms his word with an (2Ki 6:31). Gehazi confirms his lie by (2Ki 5:20. Gedaliah confirms his word by (Jer 40:9)
Below are two cases giving clear precedence of the Bishop of Rome authority to confirm (ratify)other bishops.

St. Athanasius had appealed to Rome against the decision of the Council of Tyre (335). Pope Julius had annulled the action of that council, and had restored Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra to their sees. The Eusebians, however, had contested his right to call a conciliar decision in question. The fathers who met at Sardica, and who included the most eminent of the orthodox party from East and West alike, desired by their decrees to affirm this right, and to establish a canonical mode of procedure for such appeals. The principal provisions of the canons which deal with this matter are:
 that a bishop condemned by the bishops of his province may appeal to the pope either on his own initiative or through his judges;
 that if the pope entertains the appeal he shall appoint a court of second instance drawn from the bishops of the neighbouring provinces; he may, if he thinks fit, send judges to sit with the bishops.
When the seventy Numidian bishops, who had condemned Caecilian, invoked the aid of the emperor, the latter referred them to Rome, that the case might be decided by Pope Miltiades (313). St. Augustine makes frequent mention of the circumstances, and indicates plainly that he holds it to have been Caecilian's undoubted right to claim a trial before the pope. He says that Secundus should never have dared to condemn Caecilian when he declined to submit his case to the African bishops, since he had the right "to reserve his whole case to the judgment of other colleagues, especially to that of Apostolical Churches" (Ep. 43:7). A little later (367) a council, held at Tyana in Asia Minor, restored to his see Eustathius, bishop of that city, on no other ground than that of a successful appeal to Rome.
These ordinances were not, however, in any sense the source of the pope's jurisdiction, which rested on Divine institution; they were civil sanctions enabling the pope to avail himself of the civil machinery in discharging the duties of his office. What Pope Nicholas I said of the synodal declarations regarding the privileges of the Holy See holds good here also: "Ista privilegia huic sanctae Ecclesiae a Christo donata, a synodis non donata, sed jam solummodo venerata et celebrata" (These privileges bestowed by Christ on this Holy Church have not been granted her by synods, but merely proclaimed and honoured by them) ("Ep. ad Michaelem Imp." in P. L., CXIX, 948).


[This message has been edited by Brian Ingram (edited 06-19-99).]