Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 9:43 am
The Council of Constantinople of 879AD is a robber Photian council that was never approved by Rome. This council was held by Photius to nullified the legitimate ecumenical council held in Constantinople on 869AD. In the later Photius' errors was condemned and filioque was upheld.
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.