AGAIN, Photius argued against the filioque, a man who was never taught theology and was a worldly individual. He was not clergy.
Henceforth that the Eastern churches sided with him to created a local council, is evident because the East deferred to the Filioque two times after.
And once again, that council was not ecumenical.
en.wikipedia.org
First, is it understood for the whole church to agree, it is only then ecumenical. Otherwise, no matter how many there are, they retain local council only.
The Council settled the dispute that had broken out after the deposition of
Ignatius as
Patriarch of Constantinople in 858. Ignatius, himself appointed to his office in an uncanonical manner, opposed
Caesar Bardas, who had deposed the regent
Theodora. In response, Bardas' nephew, the youthful
Emperor Michael III engineered Ignatius's deposition and confinement on the charge of treason. The patriarchal throne was filled with
Photius, a renowned scholar and kinsman of Bardas. The deposition of Ignatius without a formal ecclesiastical trial and the sudden promotion of Photios caused scandal in the church.
Pope Nicholas I and the western bishops took up the cause of Ignatios and condemned Photios's election as uncanonical. In 863, at a synod in Rome the pope deposed Photios, and reappointed Ignatius as the rightful patriarch. However, Photius enjoined the support of the Emperor and responded by calling a Council and excommunicating the pope.
[How many times did worldly leaders usurp Peter's chair in the East? Many I am seeing]
Understand he had no authority.
It was NOT ecumenical.
Understand YOU cannot remove, usurp or excommunicate the TEACHER of the whole Church.
Nobody can, no one. And no council.
The
Photian Schism (863–867) that led to the councils
of 869 and 879 represents a break between East and West. While the previous
seven ecumenical councils are recognized as ecumenical and authoritative by both East and West, many Eastern
Orthodox Christians recognize the council of 879 as the Eighth Ecumenical Council, arguing that it annulled the earlier one.[1] This council is referred to as Ecumenical in the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848.[8] The Catholic Church, however, recognizes the council of 869 as the eighth ecumenical council and does not place the council of 879 among ecumenical councils.[9]
Council of 879–880[edit]
A council was convened in 879, held at
Constantinople, comprising the representatives of
all the five patriarchates, including
that of Rome (all in all 383
bishops). Anthony Edward Siecienski writes: "In 879 the emperor called for another council to meet in Constantinople in the hopes that the new pope,
John VIII (872-882) would recognize the validity of Photius's claim upon the patriarchate. This council, sometimes called the eighth ecumenical in the East was attended by the papal legates (who had brought with them a gift from the pope—a
pallium for Photius) and by over 400 bishops, and who immediately confirmed Photius as rightful patriarch."
[1]
The council also implicitly condemned the addition of the
Filioque to the
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, an addition rejected at that time in Rome: "The Creed (without the
filioque) was read out and a condemnation pronounced against those who 'impose on it their own invented phrases [ἰδίας εὑρεσιολογίαις] and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy and display the audacity to falsify completely [κατακιβδηλεῦσαι άποθρασυνθείη] the antiquity of this sacred and venerable
Horos [Rule] with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions'."
[4] Eastern Orthodox Christians argue that thereby the council condemned not only the addition of the
Filioque clause to the creed but also denounced the clause as heretical (a view strongly espoused by Photius in his polemics against Rome), while
Roman Catholics separate the two and insist on the theological orthodoxy of the clause. According to non-Catholic Philip Schaff, "To the Greek acts was afterwards added a (pretended) letter of Pope John VIII to Photius, declaring the Filioque to be an addition which is rejected by the church of Rome, and a blasphemy which must be abolished calmly and by degrees."
[5]
In Other Words, the Pope did not agree.
And therefore; did not sign off on it...
And legit that in itself to call the Chair of Peter erring would slap the face of the WORDS, the announcement...
THAT whatever you open is open in Heaven, or close is closed in Heaven.
So let's go full circle here, again the Roman Pope did not consider it a council they stood by. It was not marked ecumenical.
The only thing the Pope did in regards to that council was send a gift to the ordination of Photius.
IF the POPE said it was heresy, then why, pray tell would the councils
of Lyons II (1274) and Florence (1439), agree to the filioque only to denounce it again... based solely and only on the choice of Photius.
WHO the heck was Photius compared to the Roman Pontiff?
Perhaps he lacked humility to create such mongering against the SOLE teacher of the Church, but I assure you, the Roman Church did not sign off on that and the proof is in history of the next councils later who agreed then disagreed.
It's the Pope's authority to teach, open and shut, but he cannot force others the humility needed to lead under him.
