Inflammatory language aside, it should be pointed out that Fr. Taft is talking about the status of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. So, while some of his statements might be applicable to Orthodoxy in general that is not the primary focus of his remarks.

*************************

Orthodoxy in Ukraine, however, can be an instructive model for one area that is problematic for Orthodoxy in the 20th and now 21st century. The Orthodox believe that there should only be one bishop in a given geographical area. This translates into national churches. Thus, there is one Russian Orthodox Church, one Greek Orthodox Church, one Serbian Orthodox Church, etc. In Ukraine, however – completely apart from the presence of the Catholic Church (both Latin Rite and Greek Catholic) and various Protestant bodies – there are three Eastern Orthodox Churches: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate, and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. One might ask: What are the Moscow Patriarchate, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the other Autocephalous Churches doing right now, today to resolve this non-canonical situation?

A similar situation exists in many European countries and in the Unites States where there is not “one” Orthodox Church, but many Orthodox jurisdictions existing side by side. Perhaps the solution that the Orthodox arrive at in Ukraine will be used in other countries where there are – contrary to the canonical norms or Orthodoxy – multiple Orthodox Churches in the same geographical area.

And lest we think this is all theoretical we should remember Jesus who said, "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one… so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”

A divided Christianity hinders the Lord’s work.

There's nothing to defend. Educate, give examples answer questions, do not defend.

(In) your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a *defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you...

1 Peter 3:15.

*Strongs word G627. apologia. 1) verbal defence, speech in defence.

Obi-Wan is right. That Rome had something to say about who the Patriarch of Constantinople was is pretty evident. Photius's case is just one of several.

Your first problem here is in assuming that all Orthodox believe the same things on this stuff. They don't Whether it's dogmatic issues like purgatory, the filioque, or what makes an ecumenical council, there are as many opinions as there are churches. Ditto for moral issues like contraception, canonical issues like the jurisdiction of bishops, or even basic ecclesiology (who is/is not "in communion" with whom?). Check the past threads with Vadim here for more info.

FWIW, my wife and I went to Greek and Antiochian churches for years when she was contemplating conversion to Orthodoxy.

You might want to read an article Confronting the Claim of Eastern Orthodoxy to be the True Church by James Likoudis, a well-known Eastern Catholic:

http://www.hprweb.com/2012/01/confronti ... ue-church/

As to dogmatic differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholics, all that I have read is packed in my head in a simple logical form. Like in geometry there are but five axioms, and all other facts, or theorems, are just logical conclusions. So exactly in case with discussions between Orthodox and Roman Catholics: although there are many articles and books, all of them can be presented in the similar form of logical system with several axioms and conclusions.

These axioms can be found in the Sentence of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, because then very similar conflict took place between Vigilius and Ecumenical Council, as the confict that is now between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

1) But also the Holy Fathers, who from time to time have met in the four holy councils, following the example of the ancients, have by a common discussion, disposed of by a fixed decree the heresies and questions which had sprung up, as it was certainly known, that by common discussion when the matter in dispute was presented by each side, the light of truth expels the darkness of falsehood.

"... the matter in dispute was presented by each side". I. e. not only Orthodox, but also heretics were always allowed to present their arguments on the Ecumenical Councils. For example, as to First Ecumenical Council — see St. Athanasius, In Defence of the Nicene Definition, beginning with the words: "Now it happened to the Eusebians in the Nicene Council as follows:" (2nd paragraph). As to Seventh Ecumenical Council — see words of St. Tarasius in Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, First Session, beginning with the words "Now, if we be satisfied that" (4th line from above).

But when the East-West Schism began, in particular during the time before the Second Council of Lyons (1274), the Greeks in their official documents wrote that they were ready to take part in an Ecumenical Council similar to those which were in the past in order to heal the schism. But the Pope wrote in his letter that he didn't allow any discussion. That's why only the Emperor's representetives arrived at that Council, but not the representatives of the Church. This is described in the article by Papadakis Ecumenism in the Thirteenth Century.

First of all, even if it's true, you guys had your chance at Florence. But you bailed on a valid ecumenical council attended by patriarch or their representatives.


Secondly, Catholic encyclopedia: Second Council of Lyon

On 24 June, 1274, there arrived at Lyons as representatives of Palaeologus, Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, Theophanes, Bishop of Nicæa, Georgius Acropolita, senator and great logothete, Nicholas Panaretus, president of the ward-robe, Berrhoeota, chief interpreter, and Georgius Zinuchi. The letter from Palaeologus which they presented had been written in the name of fifty archbishops and five hundred bishops or synods.

So there was, with Michael Paleologos the Greek Emperor, a Church representatives in the person fo Germanus and Theopanes. Moreover, the content of the letter is already signed by so many Churchmen. So the claim, "that's why only the Emperor's representetives [sic] arrived at that Council, but not the representatives of the Church" is misleading. The signed letter represents the thought of the Greek hierarchies.


Thirdly, the claim, "but the Pope wrote in his letter that he didn't allow any discussion" is also misleading. It was Clement IV who gave the ultimatum that he wanted an "unconditional surrender" from the Greek before any council would be summoned. Meaning, the Greek must accept all Catholic doctrines like the primacy of the Roman see and so forth. Clement IV was so bold because the emperor was so obedient (and he, the emperor, had other political motive too). Before the council was held Clement IV died. His successor was Gregory X. Unlike his predecessor, Gregory X allowed the East to come to the council and discuss the matter.

A History of General Councils - Msgr. Philip Hughes

With Gregory's immediate predecessor, Clement IV, the emperor had already gone almost as far as this, in 1267. That pope, a saintly man if not a saint, who all his life had been a lawyer and a judge, had replied very tersely to the compliments, stating the terms of reunion as starkly as in an ultimatum, demanding "unconditional surrender" indeed. Only when he had received from the Greeks--the emperor, the bishops, and the faithful generally--an explicit acceptance of the primacy of the Roman see, and of the whole body of its teaching, would he summon a General Council. And what Clement IV asked he set forth in the form of a creed. Before, this plain- speaking Michael had to explain that the situation was a little complicated. But there had been no aggravation of the Roman attitude, when Clement suddenly died in 1268.

The new pope who had now, to the dismay of some of the cardinals, taken the initiative was then well aware of the delicate situation. In replying to the emperor he proposed, not to send legates to Constantinople in the spirit of Clement IV's letter, but that Michael should send envoys to the coming General Council, where the related matters of reunion and a military alliance against the Saracens could be discussed. It would simplify Michael's problem if he could present the Greeks with the double fait accompli of an alliance with the West (instead of the papal alliance with their dangerous enemy Charles) and their own acceptance by Rome as Catholics no less dear than the Angevin. Michael would meanwhile put his signature to the creed prepared by Pope Clement. And so it was done.

... then if you want that "the light of truth expels the darkness of falsehood", you at least should pay some attention to the arguments of another side, which were not presented on the Council of Lyons, i. e. Orthodox arguments. Some Roman Catholics make a terrible mistake from the very beginning: they completely ignore Orthodox arguments being afraid that they will commit a sin if they read some Orthodox arguments. But how then they make sure that they are right? It's impossible to make sure that you are right if you ignore arguments of another side.

So we should alway compare Roman Catholic literature with an Orthodox literature, and only then we can make final decision.

For example, you've just quoted Catholic Encyclopedia: "there arrived at Lyons as representatives of Palaeologus, Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople". But if you looked in the Orthodox source (last line), you would read that Germanus III was a former patriarch. Here is list of patriarchs — at that time Joseph I was a patriarch.

Did you read what I quoted? Your claim that Orthodox Argument were not presented on Lyons II is misleading. Gregory X allowed discussion at Lyons. And since the Letter carried by Paleologos was signed by many Orthodox, this would mean that all the discussions already happened on the Orthodox side (that's why they could come to an agreement in the form of the letter).

The mistake made by Orthodox writer is confusing Clement IV's ultimatum with what actually happened. Clement IV wanted an unconditional surrender. But he died BEFORE the Council of Lyons II. Gregory X, his successor, allowed discussion.




Now, after further reading I grant you that Germanus III was a former Patriarch during Lyons II. But then I also found that the fact that there were only so few Greek delegates is NOT because no discussion was allowed but because other representatives was shipwrecked:

Palaeologus sent a large embassy, but only three were saved from shipwreck, Germanus, ex-patriarch of Constantinople, Theophanes, metropolitan of Nicaea, and the chancellor of the empire - Philip Schaff, HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH, chapter V

I would also add that the fact that the Church summoned St. Thomas Aquinas to the Second Council of Lyon proves that the Church anticipated discussions.

Unfortunately St. Thomas died on the way.

But this Council was not the only one. There was also Council of 879, which was confirmed by the Pope John VIII, and which condemned the Filioque. This is well-known, but again: Roman Catholic historians don't know what to do with this Council, they contradict one to another. One Roman Catholic historian says that it was not confirmed by the Pope: Catholic Encyclopedia, Photius of Constantinople:

The legates, like their predecessors in 861, agreed to everything the majority desired (Mansi, XVII, 374 sq.). As soon as they had returned to Rome, Photius sent the Acts to the pope for his confirmation. Instead John, naturally, again excommunicated him. So the schism broke out again. This time it lasted seven years, till Basil I's death in 886.

... while another Roman Catholic historian Dvornik says that it was confirmed by the Pope: F. Dvornik, art. "Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople." In: New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XI (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1967), pp. 326-329.

John VIII protested against the changes made in his letter by the Greeks, but he accepted the decisions of the union synod and recognized the rehabilitation of Photius.

Also the Council of 1285 condemned the very doctrine of Filioque, when it was at last formulated on the Second Council of Lyons (1274).

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.

Father Farncis Dvornik, a Catholic priest, is often quoted in defense of the Photian Council. In fact Fr. Dvornik is the Orthodox "go to" guy because he concedes too much to them, Photius-wise.

But the truth is, Fr. Dvornik got his fact wrong. Here is what another distinguish Catholic historian, Fr. Venance Grumel, wrote about Fr. Dvornik's interpretation:

http://thebananarepublican1.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/dvornik-photian-schism-book-review-by-grumel/

A rough translation of the French from Revue des Études Byzantines, X, 282-283.

The author of this book has already distinguished himself with his remarkable thesis: The Slavs, Byzantium and Rome in the ninth century, Paris (1926). A later work: The legends of Constantine and Methodius in Byzantine views (Prague, 1933), focused particularly on ninth century Byzantine-Slavic history, and the history of the two great missionaries. It was because of their relationships with Photius that Fr. Dvornik addressed the Photian issue. He has continued go deeper into the problem and we have not forgotten the article published in Byzantion: The Second Schism of Photius: An Historical Mystification, followed by several others in connection with the same subject. This is the result of painstaking research that is presented to us in this new place, in one of the collections directed by Mr. Henri Grégoire; it was delayed by the German invasion. The author took his manuscript to London. It was translated to English and first appeared in that language before appearing in its original language in Paris.

The book is the fruit of extensive research and of a reflective return to the whole Photian problem and new thinking. The author’s erudition is considerable. This is evidenced in the first place in the remarkable list of sources scanned, books reviewed, and even manuscripts consulted.

We know the results at which the author arrived. He hypothesized that the trial of Photius was based on a fabricated dossier, that Photius was misunderstood by historians, was calumnied, and that he should be rehabilitated. It is this hypothesis that he tried to transform from a thesis to a historical certainty.

In recognizing that Photius is not as black as he was made to be in the past, one wonders if the author did not exaggerate in the opposite direction. The dissertation still maintains a tone of argument that ultimately harms the demonstration. One sees that with every opportunity, in each case doubtful, and even in cases where there is all but contrary evidence, it is the sense favorable to the hero, and without counterweight, that is selective, it gives the impression of a one-sided vision of the events, and that he has not found the right balance. This is a simple summary in which it is not possible to expand elegantly on points that would require discussion. Let me just point out the most important on which the author is far from having made a sufficient demonstration. The first concerns the origin of the conflict for which he insists that Photius is not responsible. I cannot understand his refusal to recognize the cause of the conflict in the ordination of Photius by Gregory Asbestas, the bishop deposed by Ignatius, still less his idea to present this outrage as an act of moderation, this is a real paradox. The second concerns the decree on the symbol of faith, which I’ve already engaged more than once. He tells me that my demonstration of its inauthenticity is not conclusive, but he does not show, and the rest he does not know of the study published in this journal in 1947, when I started on this subject; I refer to that in the meantime. However, I must respond to the new argument of which I was ignorant then, namely the testimony of Patriarch Euthymius. It would certainly be crucial if it was enacted by Euthymius I, but the manuscript is from the fifteenth century, and there is no reason to deny the possibility of an attribution to Euthymius II, quite the contrary, as I will show later. It must be said that F.D. does not seem to have thought of such a possibility.

The third question, the most important, is that which concerns the Eighth Ecumenical Council. F. D. thinks he can prove that it was abrogated by John VIII. He uses, to that end, the documents transmitted by Ivo of Chartes, without taking into account that these fragments come from the Photian Council where the papal documents were altered. He also uses the Western legal tradition of the ecumenicity of that council appearing at the end of the eleventh century. He forgets that the Council of 869, which put forth no definition of faith, had met for only personal matters and that, the Photian question having been liquidated at the Council of 899, there was no reason to call attention to it again, and the peace of the Church demanded not doing so. Hence there was far from an abrogation. Moreover, the integral letter of Stephen V to the Emperor Basil I that I presented to International Congress of Byzantine Studies in Paris and Brussels, shows that no pope had suppressed the acts of the Eighth Council.

I leave aside for now the other minor points.

Despite the differences that separate me from F. D., I highly appreciate the value of his work, which I consider the most important work published on the Photian Schism since Hergenröther and essential for anyone who wants to study this major historical problem.

In short, Fr. Dvornik got his fact wrong in stating that Constantinople 869 (Catholic's Eight Ecumenical COuncil) was abrogated by Constantinople 879 (Orthodox's Eight Ecumenical Council).



So Vadim, we never bail from valid ecumenical council. You guys bailed at Florence AND at Constantinople 869. You guys tried to bail from Constantinople 869 by abrogating it through the Photian robber synod, that is Constantinople 879 (don't you guys know well enough that you can't abrogate a valid ecumenical council?). It didn't work. Constantinople 879 was never approved by any pope.





What council is this, Vadim?

Further reading, from the same blog, with evidence that Constantinople 879 is a robber council and never approved:

The Photian Robber Council of 879-880

The Eighth Ecumenical Council

The 879-880 Council Is Not the Eighth Council

Council of Blachernae under Patriarch Gregory II of Constantinople. It is not one of 23 Ecumenical Councils recognized by the Catholic Church.

But I'd like to point out Pope John Paul II had no difficulty to recite the Creed in Greek without Filioque when he said it with the Patriarch of Constantinople.

From EWTN on Filioque clause:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FILIOQUE.HTM

Pope Paul VI admitted that it wasn't so:

The remarkable thing about this papal letter is that it recognizes that the council gave no “possibility to the Greek Church of expressing itself freely,” and that “a unity achieved in this way could not be accepted completely by the mentality of the Eastern Christians.”

It also isn't recognized as an ecumenical council by many (if not most) Orthodox.

I haven't read the full text of the letter, but this doesn't seem to be so absolute. The Greek side was limited due to the aforementioned shipwreck. I can see how that wouldn't be the ability to freely express oneself when so many weren't there. Do we get to say likewise because of Aquinas's absence?

If Gregory X really didn't take a different path than Pope Clement did, why were so many cardinal upset with him?

Who should I believe Vadim? Gregory X who presided the council itself, or Paul VI who presided Vatican II?