But he didn't mean to show that it is no longer valid. As John Paul II himself explains in Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint:

Here it is not a question of altering the deposit of faith, changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential words from them, accommodating truth to the preferences of a particular age, or suppressing certain articles of the Creed under the false pretext that they are no longer understood today.
<...>
And how could I ever forget taking part in the Eucharistic Liturgy in the Church of Saint George at the Ecumenical Patriarchate (30 November 1979), and the service held in Saint Peter's Basilica during the visit to Rome of my Venerable Brother, Patriarch Dimitrios I (6 December 1987)? On that occasion, at the Altar of the Confession, we recited together the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed according to its original Greek text.

What do you mean there is nothing to defend? I've heard many Orthodox Christians attack the Catholic Church.

All the more reason to belong to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Anyway, this was only one example. What about Vatican I? Free discussion was forbidden there undoubtedly.

But maybe you may think: was there a need for a Council at all? Maybe the authority of the Popes is self-evident?

Possibly the best example that proves the contrary is the letter of Pope Adrian I, Greek translation of which was read on the Seventh Ecumenical Council:

http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=5sC ... &q&f=false

I mean fragment about primacy of the Pope from the last line of p. 48 until the sign of the cross on p. 49. This is English translation from Greek translation of the letter. And in footnotes of p. 49 there is English translation of Latin original of this fragment.

This shows that Greeks simply didn't know about authority of the Pope, because if they knew, then they wouldn't weaken that teaching in their translation.

seems i still have a lot to learn i thought the eastern orthodox were in communion with Rome. seems like this is the civil war of Catholics i think idk i just got a whole lot more confused reading this thread.

There are Churches in communion with Roman that carry on the traditions of Orthodoxy; perhaps you're thinking of those.

The Catholic Church is made up of several Western and Eastern rites. Each rite “represents an ecclesiastical, or church, tradition about how the sacraments are to be celebrated.” All of these rites are in communion with the Bishop of Rome and together they make up “The Catholic Church.” Here is a list of those rites: Catholic Rites and Churches.

The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Here is a list of those Churches: List of Orthodox Churches. This list is from wikipedia so it may not be exactly correct in the details.

Except that this isn't true. There were multiple theories of infallibility floating around and the strongest didn't even win out. Do you think that everybody agreed with Cardinal Manning and that he was happy with the results?




Papal authority is from revelation. Not sure anybody would say that what must be revealed is self-evident.



We could always say it's a forgery.

Seriously, though, your last statement is an assumption without foundation. There are plenty of reasons why such might be omitted in a translation. For the same reasons that a forgery would be made in the first place, for example.

Besides, it's pretty tough to argue that they didn't know considering how many appeals had been made to Rome up till then for binding decisions on multiple issues, radical displays of papal power (eg Felix III), the blatant admission of papal authority by the Eastern bishops in the Formula of Hormisdas, and so forth.

No, it was not. Any reading of the proceeding of the council is suffice to challenge that assertion.



Self-evident how? As in how Theotokos is so self-evident that we need a council to define it? Or as in how diophysite is so self-evident that we need another council to define it?

No defined doctrines of Christianity is self-evident, Vadim.



Do you applaud their dishonesty in weakening (read: mistranslating/modifying) the Pope's letter?

Do you at least recognize that Adrian I believed in his own authority, since the Latin version asserts papal authority?

If the Greek were so reluctant of Papal Authority asserted in Adrian I's letter, why did they merely soften/weaken it instead of reject it? Why were they in communion with Adrian I? Why were they held Adrian in great esteem on Nicea II? Why were they honor his legates? Surely if they believed Adrian I held the heresy of papal authority they would've deposed him in that council and sent his legates away.

Council of 869 is another good illustration of what I've said. Whereas Ecumenical Councils usually read and analyzed acts of robber councils, the Council of 869 simply burnt the acts of Council of 867, which condemned Pope Nicholas. I. e. in this case we again see lack of discussion.

As a result of this, and as a clear sign that indicates lack of discussion, we again see contradiction between two Roman Catholics. Filioque was passed in silence on Council of 869, so that even Anastasius Bibliothecarius, who took part in this Council and translated its acts into Latin at the pope's order, interpreted Filioque wrong in his letter of 874, from the point of view of Roman Catholics, and correctly from the point of view of the Orthodox. Here is what another Roman Catholic says about this, Fr. Martin Jugie:

Martin Jugie, De processione Spiritus Sancti ex fontibus revelationis et secundum Orientales dissidentes (Rome 1936), p. 185, n.:

By another method the Greeks and Russians [Graeco-Russi] endeavor to draw St. Maximus to their own side. For an interpretation of Maximus’s words in the Epistola ad Marinum has come down to us from Anastasius the Librarian, which, in the published editions, goes like this:


“Furthermore, we have translated, from the letter of the same St. Maximus addressed to the priest Marinus, a passage concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, wherein he notes that the Greeks had brought up a charge against us to no purpose, since we do not claim that the Son is cause or principle of the Holy Spirit, as they suppose; but, being not unaware of the unity of substance of the Father and the Son, we say that, in just the way he proceeds from the Father, in that very same way he proceeds from the Son, taking ‘procession,’ doubtless, in the sense of ‘mission.’ By this pious interpretation Maximus instructs those who are unlearned* in the two languages to be at peace, since in fact he teaches both us and the Greeks that, in one way, the Holy Spirit does proceed from the Son, and, in another way, he doesn’t, while he points out the difficulty of expressing the idiom of one language in that of another.” Collectanea ad Joannem Diaconum, PL 129, 560-561 and PG 91, 133.

From Anastasius’s words, “taking ‘procession,’ doubtless, in the sense of ‘mission,’” certain Greek and Russian theologians infer: (1) the Latins at that time, namely, from the seventh to ninth centuries, understood the formula a Patre Filioque procedit not as applying to the Spirit’s eternal procession, but as speaking of his temporal mission; (2) Maximus himself accepted the formula a Patre per Filium in that very sense. In truth, so far as Maximus is concerned, his own words sufficiently cry out against such an interpretation. And, among the Latins, it is only Anastasius whose words lead him into danger, if in fact he is confusing procession and mission, which, from the aforecited passage, is in no way certain. For, from the things which he immediately subjoins, namely, “in one way, the Holy Spirit does proceed from the Son, and, in another way, he doesn’t,” he shows that he has understood St. Maximus’s own explanation correctly. For this reason Combefisius, the editor of Maximus’s works, conjectures that it is very likely that, in place of missionem (mission), one ought to read emissionem (emission), by which word Anastasius would have wished to render the Greek word προϊέναι, from which comes the word πρόοδος, corresponding to the Latin word processio.

*This is Jugie’s reading. The Migne text reads “learned.”

In his Theologia Dogmatica Christianorum Orientalium, vol. 2 (Paris 1933), p. 441, Jugie comments more simply: “Textus sane est obscurus et talis qui suspicionem ingere possit de scientia theologica Anastasii,” “the text indeed is obscure and such as might well raise a doubt about Anastasius’s theological competency.”

What is interesting is that in this case we have six layers of interpretations, one inside of another, like Matryoshka

a) the Gospel of John;
b) commentary on the Gospel of John by St. Cyril, and certain sayings of Latin Fathers, which Latins usually interpret as Filioque;
c) letter of St. Pope Martin I, which referred to these sayings;
d) St. Maximus the Confessor interprets the words of St. Pope Martin I;
e) interpretation of Maximus is interpreted by Anastasius Bibliothecarius;
f) interpretation of Anastasius Bibliothecarius is interpreted by Fr. Martin Jugie.

1. Sorry. But we simply reject your premise on the necessity of discussion.

2. And Pope Nicholas was dead on November 867 (plus he probably did not learn that Photius deposed him).

3. There was already a discussion about the robber council. It was discussed by a council in Rome 10-06-869 (dd-mm-yyyy). The fourth general council of Constantinople 869 (05-10-869) simply confirmed the Roman council acts.




Ah yes. Two roman Catholics have different of opinion with one another. Nothing's new under the sun.

In which document?

Wouldn't that be your problem? Finding supported documents that is.

As far as I know, officially this wasn't proclaimed. By the way, when on the Council of 869 rejected the necessity of presence of St. Photius at the Council, then officer Vaanis brought forward to papal legates the example with Apostle St. Thomas.

Although this Apostle doubted that Christ resurrected, he wasn't anathematized immediately as heretic, but Christ gave him additional evidence: showed His wounds.

In a similar way, on Ecumenical Councils heretics were allowed to "touch" the Christ, Who invisibly was present on Ecumenical Councils, by means of free discussion.

The Holy Spirit doesn't protect the Church unless there is sufficient discussion?

Who decides if there is sufficient discussion to qualify for the Holy Spirit's protection?

That's why I said that it would be your problem (finding documentation supporting the idea that there should be a discussion).

Because we Catholic have such documentation. It's Pastor Aeternus. Although the document is about papal infallibility, we could infer easily from it that a discussion is not a necessity for a universally binding ecumenical council decisions.



Photius had no problem excommunicating Pope Nicholas in absentia. Why then should we extend the courtesy? Because we are nice guys?

Heck, let's be cool and hardcore and give Photius a taste of his own medicine.

This cannot be inferred, because, as Sentence of the Fifth Ecumenical Council says, all of the Apostles were infallible, yet it didn't mean that in difficult cases a discussion would be unnecessary. Similarly, infallibility of the Pope still doesn't mean that in difficult cases a discussion will be unnecessary. Sentence of the Fifth Ecumenical Council:

And to this end we brought to his remembrance the great examples left us by the Apostles, and the traditions of the Fathers. For although the grace of the Holy Spirit abounded in each one of the Apostles, so that no one of them needed the counsel of another in the execution of his work, yet they were not willing to define on the question then raised touching the circumcision of the Gentiles, until being gathered together they had confirmed their own several sayings by the testimony of the divine Scriptures.

The discussion may be needed only in difficult cases. In other cases - of course, it isn't necessary.

Who defines these terms?

Yes it can. Look:

Pastor Aeternus - The Twentieth Ecumenical Council of Vatican

5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.

There are 4 ways mentioned above how the Roman Pontiff arrived at an infallible decision. Sure there are ways where he consult others. But these are, as shown, not the only ways. There are ways to arrive at infallible definition without consulting others.



They were not willing. But they could if they want to (ie. decide without consultation in virtue of their personal infallibility). It says, "no one of them needed the counsel of another in the execution of his work."

In the middle of this Council Emperor forbade further discussions. But before this moment, when discussions were still allowed, the arguments of Greeks, in fact, were more convincing, so that even some Latin participants decided that it were the Greeks who were right.