During the Photian Schism, in the Council of 869, Pope Nicholas I deposed St. Photius, but in the council of 879, Pope John VIII reinstated St. Photius and also anathematized all who changed the creed in any way, whether by insertion or deletion.

The council of 879 was initially accepted in the west, and was copied such by Medeival canonists until (I believe) the 12th century, (source: Christopher M. Belitto, The General Councils, p. 34)

But the canonists, apparently to elevate the view of the Pope, later adopted the council of 869 instead as “the eighth” because Pope Nicholas I, who was very influenced by the Frankish ambitions according to Fr. John S. Romanides (http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm#14), used more grandoise language in asserting his right to depose St. Photius.

There is a great scholarly work about this issue, entitled The Photian Schism by Francis Dvornik, that I haven’t read but am hoping to some time soon.

Anyway, I don’t know if this was already on your minds, but I just wanted to point that out in case you hadn’t thought of it. It is generally forgotten that there are technically (and even according to the Ravenna agreement) 8 ecumenical Councils, even though this eighth seems to be less about doctrine and more about Canons and pastoring. I think this is very important to this discussion we are having.

Also, could someone help me understand how Papal infallibility is feasible considering the anathematizing of Pope Honorius by the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 680?

thank you!

Timothy +a sinner

Michael – Interesting that in the end Newman alone prevails for you – “It is so because it must be so.” to paraphrase his letter to Gladstone.

The interpretations the committee gives to some of its sources (e.g., to the words of Ireneaus, Pope Gelasius, the Council of Chalcedon, and Cyprian, who asked in one passage “If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?”) are highly questionable, to put it mildly.

The Orthodox Church, Michael, seems to have had no problem in the past with treating a falliable source as the de facto arbiter of last resort. Eastern bishops often appealed to the Emperor to decide matters when a decision from Rome was either unwanted or, practially speaking, unavailable. If an Orthodox representative did see the force of your argument, then I suspect he would avoid your conclusion by maintaining that an oecumenical council would have to be the “court of last appeals” in cases that were important enough to warrant something approaching infallibility. The Orthodox would only consider such as council as this, if anything, potentially infallible.

A good point about the “undivided church” in the 1st millennium. It would be more accurate to say that the Western Church and the part of the Eastern Church which became today’s Orthodox Church were (largely) in communion during that time frame, even though they had divergent views on many matters, including the papacy.

Just to play devil’s advocate regarding papal infallibility (something which I of course accept), many in the East would say that infallibility goes beyond what is necessary for a court of final appeal. Firstly, in many cases the appeal in question might not be a doctrinal matter, and thus infallibility is a moot point. Secondarily, another problem (in Eastern eyes) with papal infallibility is what happens when the pope exercises it when no appeal has been made? In the case of both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, there was no crisis which had to be solved, so many would say that the Pope in those instances went beyond just being a court of final appeal as he was in the 1st millennium.

If I hadn’t discovered the Eastern Catholic Churches before I discovered Eastern Orthodoxy, I’d be in a world of hurt by now, torn in two. I have found my spiritual home in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, but I feel as if I straddle a crevasse that shouldn’t exist.

After experiencing among my family and friends almost every conceivable form of division, compromise and conversion from and to any and every religion, this is what I believe to the depths of my soul:

1)That anything true, good and beautiful in any religion ultimately points to the reality of God as revealed by Christ, because He Is the ultimate Source of all that is.

2) That the Churches who speak in His name must be “Catholic in Unity and Orthodox in Faith”. If we can’t breathe with both lungs, our wheezing voice will be hard to hear.

Pray that we be One, as Our Father is One.

We should distinguish between a pullback from ultramontanism in practice, and a renunciation of “papal claims” in theory.

The first is desirable and indicated by Vatican II; it is, I think, what John Paul II meant by a “new situation” in Ut Unum Sint. The second, however, would be a defection from unchangeable Catholic dogma. We are simply not free to accommodate the separated Eastern churches by this means.

I am Eastern Catholic. Sadly, many people in my church seem reluctant and deeply ambivalent vis a vis the (often poorly-understood) “papal claims”; many eventually leave for Eastern Orthodoxy– which they claim is a more “honest” option for one who doubts what Vatican I teaches. I suppose that is true in a way, though many of them do not seem to understand the teachings they supposedly reject. (As such, one can hope they are acting out of ignorance.)

At some point in all of this “dialogue,” it will have to be made clear that Vatican I is not negotiable. It says what it says. It does not mandate ultramontanism or forbid a new situation of the Pope in regard to other local and particular churches. But its essential teaching must be accepted for a true union of churches to take place.

I’m not holding my breath, particularly as the Catholic hierarchy wishes to address practically every other possible question instead, and act almost ashamed of what she nevertheless teaches authoritatively. We should have begun where we left off –with the Filioque, at the Council of Florence– and then taken up the dogmas of Vatican I directly. “Si, si; no, no.”