-ANAAEKTA BAATAAQN

oo

_ JOHAN MEIJER C. $s. R.

A SUCCESSFUL COUNCIL OF ‘UN ION |

Af THEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS.
OF THE PHOTIAN SYNOD OF 879 -880

- BATPIAPXIKON [APYMA ATEPIKQN MEAETQN

OEZZAAONIKE
7
1975
A SUCCESSFUL COUNCIL OF UNION
 1
ial feraj
ikik: 2
‘
oN

cal

ie
r |
v0 oh
yy ‘

4 y ’
:
‘q .
&
 ANAAEKTA BAATAAQN
20

JOHAN MEIJER C. Ss. R.

A’ SUCCESSFUL COUNCIL OF UNION

A THEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
OF THE PHOTIAN SYNOD OF 879 - 880

TATPIAPXIKON IAPYMA TTATEPIKQN MEAETQN

O@EZZAAONIKH
1975
 ANAAEKTA BAATAAQN
EKAIAOMENA YIIO

TIANATIOTOY K. XPHZTOY

Theology Library

SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
AT CLAREMONT
California

ANALECTAS¥LATA DON
EDITED BY

PANAYOTIS C. CHRISTOU
23

Jonan A. Meser, A Successful Council of Union.

A theological analysis of the Photian Synod of 879-880

Copyright: Patriarchai Institute for Patristic Studies

Thessaloniki 1975
Mryjobnt, Kibo, tho >Exxdnoias cov
tod ovoac0a adtiy and mavtosg movnood
xal tehermoa abtyy é&v Th ayaa cov,
xai ovvagoyv avtiy ano THY Tecodowy dvéuwr,
thy aytacbetoar,
eig THY ony Baotheiar,
49. \ \ (a

hv yroiuacas abth -
6tt cob eotw 7 Odvapic
iWg ~ > ¢ te

ual 4 00&a
sic TOS ai@vac.
*Aury.
Aayn X, 5

io my many orthodox friends,

with gratitude for what they gave me.
 oe
a x 1
1 4 r vat Pali
.
t
ta Pe
7 %

eee
= r
eo
> #

7 ar =
as {
ag
a ‘ ; >»v
7 ib ™~ i
ci: 5 4 ret ya has
>
(pees uals niet ey: iy inde: Aetna: Se &
es | ve ae ere
Pere eae “hy ete aver’ » sev +
. Mp eben wHs
py Ge eyesyee
‘ on Yds Venn >
a

%
J

‘
ps

A Uae
hae

e 4

at NPs:

AY
5 - ‘

7 rr
‘.
m i
\-h *
—." ; '
=

= = >

cy” \k

x
r

a
yo
44
At
=. = =
~ Sy) wv
~ —
 FOREWORD

If ecumenism is fundamentally a movement, its aim must be

to move Christians iowards one another. If it is successful, long esta-
blished positions and tenets will begin to lose their importance, and
Christians will start to recognize each other as brothers. This is true
unity, and ts to identified with being-Church.
For this reason I am very grateful to Father John Meyendorff
of St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary in Yonkers, New York,
who originally suggested my undertaking the study of the theological
aspects of the Photian synod. Was this not an example of a truly
‘ecumenical’ council, where Christians with different mental back-
grounds and theological presuppositions were able to reunite, without
imposing upon one another their own particular customs and tradi-
tions? I should like to acknowledge my indebtedness to all those who
helped me in my work, and especially to Father W. de Vries S. J.,
of the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, who directed the thesis
on which this monograph is based. and to Gamon McLellan and
Father J. Casey C.Ss.R., who helped to make my English a little
more readable. Finally I should like to express my gratitude to the
Patriachal Institute for Patristic Studies in Thessaloniki, under the
direction of Professor Panaghiotis Christou and Dr. Evangelos Chry-
sos, for undertaking to publish the book in the series Analecta
Viatadon. To these, and to the many others who helped me by
their stimulating friendship, many thanks.
Thessaloniki, May 28th 1973
 yf ‘ 1

Ae

AS
ee aoe me dee
et ey
eve ee yee Wahine: sete
wea Wd vet on aw sige ar Wiw diners iw Ayoap iswQ |
<
% oth
eh an a
ey
Dene alta | xy ¢ ote,Sip nn

> Le oe tal’)Ty ms iy a tae “cine -

WA. ee a WAS ir. ote ivkane ia mye, oo Sf ep
ey secan$
ive ga rue) = Sect

shat. Waray, 2m R's,‘ cing vo nia shat

= Ee glse ee sai ai fcfal aL rainy shonin Yagi 584: ne
‘4. ‘ai a tise Ug! Vivian Se rial o ‘wpe SA eet
(pearpene ah epetrereress eda! yyibderegity «24 ‘sd Wuiode 84
Pas oe ahv; oat ie 1 Wee a ut)Aaegre > seen hein ye rH seth
PLR ak Goyer aibh, spt: sl wh. Roartannset
eg
a aay xh = Pe wi Le) > ep vy a Se a
aut &.paige’ “it. GE teat Gen Kak = ~<eN
+ ate sinaiot ee ndite WAN Whew | vein S,
~ al
yr
2
a hiseea xan
lyail sn
igs OE vy Oa ie eet
Aeed:ewe 2, nhs 4). Toes: hh Salley a8 ha)
aa ) ery sineeesaad A, Naha one =I at 4 :
phe aes — . Spat Seine wo ae
me Sane ae ae wren: 26:
4. ee
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS

INTRODUCTION

PART ONE: HISTORY

CHAPTER I |
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Polarization in the Church of Constantinople
Photius’ election as patriarch
Involvement of the Church of Rome
Break between both churches
. Towards peace in Constantinople
wwe
Dm . A synod of union
CHAPTER II
THE AUTHENTICITY AND VALUE OF THE SOURCES
1. Two versions of the Papal letters
The letter to the Emperors
The letter to Photius
The letter to the Bishops of Constantinople
The Commonitorium
2. A possible solution
The Register of Pope John VIII
The Version according to the Acts
3. The authenticity of the Acts of the Photian Synod
Many different manuscripts
Authenticity of the acts and acceptance of the synod
Opposition and answer
The authenticity of the acts of the sixth and seventh session
Conclusion

CHAPTER II
THE SYNOD OF UNION OF 879 - 880
1. Historical survey of the sessions of the synod
2. The Synod of 879 - 880 in history
10
PART TWO: ANALYSIS
CHAPTER IV
THE PAPAL LETTERS AND THE COMMONITORIUM

1. Letter of Pope John VIII to the Emperors 74

74
Introduction and greetings
Recognition of Photius 77
Absolution and acceptance 80
Having the authority of Saint Peter 81
83
Rejection of the Synod of 869
Exhortation to the Emperors (CV) 86
Promotion of laymen to the episcopacy 88
The Diocese of Bulgaria 94
Exhortation to the Emperors (RV) 93
The Ignatian bishops and clergy 94
Those who refused to accept Photius 95
Final remarks 95

2. Letter of Pope John VIII to Photius 96

Greetings 96
The Legates’ refusal to concelebrate with Photius SE)
Those who refused to accept Photius 99
Absolution and acceptance 100
Promotion of laymen to the episcopacy 102
The Diocese of Bulgaria 103
Rejection of the Synod of 869 104
Final remarks 105

3. Letter of Pope John VIII to the Bishops of Constantinople

and the other patriarchates 106
Greetings 106
Absolution and acceptance of Photius 107
Further conditions for Photius’ acceptance 110
Final remarks 411
4. The Commonitorium 112
Chapter I 113
Chapter II 113
Chapter ITI 4
Chapter IV 114
Chapter V 415
Chapter VI 116
Chapter VII 116
Chapter VII ey)
Chapter IX 417

Chapter X 118
Chapter XI 419

5. The letter to the Ignatians ; 120

 14

CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS OF THE ACTS
1. General atmosphere of the Synod of 879 - 880 124
2. The significance of the Synod of 879 - 880 127
For Photius 127
For the Emperor 131
For the Fathers 132
For the Roman legates 140
For the legates of. the Oriental Patriarchates 148
3. The role of the Roman legates 153
The Synod and the legates from Rome 153
The Synod and the Roman Church 155
The oriental legates and Rome 159
Photius and Ronte 161

PART THREE: REFLECTION

CHAPTER VI
CHURCH AND SYNOD
4. Local Church: and Universal Church 169
2. The position of the Church of Rome 472
3. Unity of the Church 181
4. Church and Synod 194

CHAPTER VII
ECUMENICAL CHALLENGE
1. Tragedy and hope 202
2. The Ecumenical Council of 879 - 880 203
3. An ecumenical challenge 210

APPENDIX 213
WEPIAHYI= BaF

BIBLIOGRAPHY 279

INDEX 289
 ‘ “davai te
ee ri

arSSE Roache 1k ae
: EPG tel aight S14

Pit eh uta ae att 05

ptY e-

tows ctl pt) Pape i ait

ren Pip be ‘wore ja pi ae _

peasaitee aera
. SR) fy
5 tia Mh ited inten,

. i ah te #54)inh) we ) joi Tiwesy:at :

| Se aa oad Yeroesisn§, io|
Basia’ bie veil ioe
OS) th gates
earsaaa See

een erya) Sytahiti ae

ame at
 ABBREVIATIONS

BZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift
CMH Cambridge Medieval History
COH Het Christelijk. Oosten (en Hereniging)
DTC Dictionnaire de Théoiogie Catholique, ed. A.VACANT
and P. MANGENOT.
DVORNIK F. DVORNIK, The Photian Schism.
EO Echos d’Orient
GOTR The Greek Orthodox Theological Review
HA RDOUIN J. HARDOUIN, Acta Conciliorum et Epistolae Decre-
tales ac Constitutiones Summorum Pontificum.
JES Journal of Ecumenical Studies
LThK _ Lexikon fiir Theologie und Kirche
MANSI J. D. MANSL, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplis-
sima Collectio.
MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica
NRTh Nouvelle Revue Théologique
OcP Orientalia Christiana Periodica.
EG J.P. MIGNE, Patrologiae cursus completus, Series
Graeca.
PL J.P. MIGNE, Pairologiae cursus completus, Series
Latina.
POC Proche Orient Chrétien
REB Reeue des Etudes Byzantines.
StdZ Sttmmen der Zeit
SVO Saint Viadimir’s Orthodox Theological Quarterly
 PAE UAE
* 5 * , a ee Can! a

Ss 10 lke siedire Se a oe
: ‘ — ‘ wn Ai hagnes ? a Ci o 4 a rs)

jek cerngngh ty eemaat Seppe, 3 Gop i

:

eX qh riven W645) . ae e 7
ae ee ee ‘sae
ear Len ‘td
Ba »
8Pai Baa wy iV Aen) A 4%

ear wets
ft a eh ow, AS eer dil et ae
shake, Es Celgeg its.’ ‘As faucet eee te men i

eae tS wie ey, Vg hea ealee ape ‘a wre TR, MON.

fee y. LE havin cancel NeBee os Aiea oe
ea Libbeniore rye nok enc
es
eT ae ee Oe BRT ke otal
ina eae ta oh jaye eed Pi is

Bed a TN ao fee nia Ree

ott eh ator, RS
bed! or viii ca Peed ai %

pea hin ab ie
pease
 INTRODUCTION

_ The person of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople in the

ninth century has been for many years the subject of a contradictory
evaluation in East and West. The Orthodox East honours him as
a saint and gives him the title ‘the Great’, while in the West he
was—and sometimes still is— considered as the real instigator of
the break between the two sister-churches of Constantinople and
Rome. Historical research and writing have been influenced for
so long by a biased attitude and by sources of questionable value,
that it: was difficult to unravel his personality from the network
of legend and reality spun around him. Only since the end of the
last century have attempts been made from various angles to reach
the real Photius. Scholars, such as Hergenroether1, Gerazim Yared,
Ivantsov-Platonov, Rossejkin, Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Grumel
and Jugie have contributed greatly to this by their renewed re-
search. Special mention must be made however of the Czech By-
zantinist Francis Dvornik, who was able through his many stud-
ies and articles to make a definite distinction between history and
legend concerning the person of Photius. His research culminated
in his monumental work, The Photian Schism, History and Legend,
Cambridge 1948, (reprinted in 1970) ?. The scholarly work of
Dvornik and these others has made Photius less of a legendary
figure, and put him back into history, restoring him to his real
historical proportion. This does not mean that unanimity has
been reached on all issues. In some questions, for the most part
minor ones, disagreement with Dvornik’s position is possible.

1. J. HERGENROETHER, Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel. Sein

Leben, seine Schriften und das griechische Schisma, 3 Bande, Regensburg
1867 - 1869. ‘This work will keep its value for all scholars who want to deal
with Photius’, F. DvoRNIK, “The Patriarch Photius in the light of recent
research”, in Berichte zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten Kongress, Min-
?

chen 1958 III 2, 14.

2. Quoted as DvorniK. Two years later the French edition was pub-
lished: F. DVORNIK, Le Schisme de Photius, Histoire et légende, Paris 1950.
16

This certainty which resulted from historical research, and

the place ascribed traditionally to Photius in the history of the
ecclesiastical break between East and West, made it attractive
to start an investigation into the theological implications of this
person and his period. Various authors have pointed out that this
is the period when East and West began to grow apart. The Pho-
tian problematics are only a symptom of this '.

The choice of the ninth century as the period for this inves-
tigation is not inspired by mere archeological interest. The re-
sults of the estrangement at that time are still with us. They have
frequently obscured relations and formed an obstacle to a renewed
approach. We should have the courage to go back to history,
which might lead us to reconsider facts which we have been ac-
customed to consider without question. In our commitment to an
ecumenical movement, a movement to break down the barriers
which history has thrown up between Christians, such a ‘kathar-
sis’ can be very fruitful. In the past judgements have been made
without sufficient knowledge of historical facts and without under-
standing fully the various circumstances. Opponents were sup-
posed to teach and to hold opinions which we thought they
defended, and were judged according to our way of thinking.
Renewed study of history made it possible to open anew cases
such as that of Photius. New light was shed upon questions which
were considered closed. As Y. Congar confessed: ‘It is my per-
sonal experience that every time (or practically every time) that
I have gone back to the original facts and documents I disco-
vered something different from what I had been led to believe’?.
Why then have we chosen this council of Photius? Witbin
the Roman. Catholic Church — especially since the Second Va-
tican Council — the local Churches have become more and more
conscious of their independence and of their right to give their
own shape to their particular church. The text itself of the Coun-
cil suggested this *. In practice this is not so simple, and various

1. D. STIERNON, Constantinople IV, Paris 1967, 234; K. BONIS, “‘Kor-

referat zu Dyornik”, in Berichte zum XI. SR gece Byzantinisten
Kongress, Miinchen 1958 III 2, 24.
2. Y. CONGAR, “Church History as a branch of Theology” in Concilium
6 (1970) n. 7,90.
3. H.g . Lumen Conta 23: Sacrosanctum Concilium 41; Pt Do-
 17

difficulties in the Roman Catholic Church of today find their

explanation in this awakened consciousness of independence and
collegiality (conciliarity) which the last council proclaimed.
For the Orthodox Church this consciousness did not need
to be awakened. A council was always considered to be the
expression of the unity of the independent local churches. With
this view the Orthodox Church is courageously working on the
preparation of its ‘Holy and Great Council’, the first for more
than 1185 years 1.
What is the function of a synod? “Rome the criterion of
unity, or orthodoxy in faith?” *, Synodal structure or monar-
chical structure? These are the pressing problems in the dialogue
between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches. It would
therefore seem to be of interest both to the Roman Catholic Church
and to the Orthodox Church to undertake an investigation of the
Council of 879-880, where these problems were very much live issues.
Throughout history, the difference between the Church of Rome
and the other local Churches in their understanding of these ques-
tions has often lead to violent collisions. One such collision re-
sulted in the ninth century in a break between the Church of
Constantinople and the Church of Rome, but in 879 a synod was
called at Constantinople. The difficulties were resolved and unity
with Rome restored. Rome had sent its legates to Constantinople
and Pope John VIII accepted the decisions of this synod, the only
council of union in history which succeeded.

Does this Synod of 879-880 reveal something of the theolo-

gical thinking of this period in East and West? It was the last
time that the undivided Church met together. This Synod is still
held in high esteem by the Orthodox Church. What ideas were
held at that time in Rome and Constantinople about the Church,

minus 3; Orientalium Ecclesiarum 2ff. See also: P. DUPREY, “The Synodal

Structure of the Church in Eastern Theology”, in One in Christ 7(1971)
152 - 182.
4. Cf. P. NELLAS, ‘H dyia xai weyddn odvodog tijg de00dd£0u ° Exxdnoias,
Thessaloniki 1972. f
2. Quoted by F. Dvornik, ‘‘Das neue Bild des Patriarchen Photius” in
Berichte zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten Kongress, Miinchen 1958,
Diskussionsbeitrage, 46. See also DVORNIK 5ff.
18

about the value of a council? How was the intervention of the

Roman Church in the problems of the local Church of Constanti-
nople considered? What place was given to the Church of Rome
in the universal Christian Church? The contemporary relevance
of these questions for both East and West make a study of this
Synod worthwhile. Especially today when the relation between
the Churches is confronted again and again with seemingly con-
tradictory views about the Church, it is good to give our atten-
tion to this unique case of reunion.

In the first part a picture is given of the historical background

to facilitate better understanding of the problems concerning
Photius and the results of modern historical research. It has not
been considered necessary to adopt a particular stand on the
various controversial issues, unless this is needed for our theolo-
gical investigation later on. We refer to the tremendous amount
of literature on this subject which deals with it sufficiently *.
After this historical background, the study of the synod will con-
sist of an analysis of the papal letters read at the synod, and of the
Acts. A reflection upon the outcome of this analysis will give a
hopeful perspective and challenge on the way to the restoration
of the full communion between the Christian Churches, which
is so much the desire of their Lord.

1. Cf. HERGENROETHER, op. cit.; DVORNIK with a long bibliography

474 - 487. Special information on the anti-Photian sources and personalities
can be found in A. M. IvANTSOv - PLATONOV, “K izsledovaniam o Fotie
Patriarkhe Konstantinopol’skom”, in Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago
Proseyeshchenia (1892) n. 280, 121-148; n. 283, 1-60, 205 - 250; n. 284
T2299 35, :
 PART ONE
HISTORY

CHAPTER I
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

1. POLARIZATION IN THE CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE

In 856, the young Emperor Michael III assumed power in

Constantinople, thus bringing to an end the regency of his mother
the Empress Theodora. However, this coup had deeper roots. For
centuries Constantinople had been the scene of a polarization
between two political and religious trends, which from time to
time would explode into overt fighting. These two factions resulted
from two mental attitudes. Led by the Studite monks and with
a large following among the people, one faction was character-
ized by a conservative mentality, involving rigid interpretation
of the canons. The other faction was more moderate and pro-
gressive in thought, and drew its main support from among the
intellectuals and. the court‘. The fanaticism provoked by the
persecution of the Iconoclastic period had poisoned the atmos-
phere, and restoration of peace was hence a difficult project. The
Empress Theodora (842-856) who had played an important rdéle
in the restoration of the Icons (843), had hoped that the appoint-
ment of the pious monk Ignatius would bring the two parties toge-
ther. Ignatius was the son of the Emperor Michael I (811-813)
and therefore could be expected to be acceptable to the moderates
and their partisans at the court, and as a monk he would probably
be favourable to the conservatives. These expectations did not
materialize. His appointment itself by the Empress was immediately

1. Perhaps the word trend is better than faction or party so as to

avoid the impression that they were ‘organized’. See A. BURG, “Paus Johan-
nes VIII en Constantinopel”, in COH 6(1953-1954) 24;.M. JuGrE, Le
Schisme byzantin, Paris 1941, 104ff.
20

attacked, because it seemed to have been made without the neces-

sary canonical election by the synod of bishops. Ignatius himself,
however, also made a solution difficult, siding openly with the
conservatives and refusing to stay neutral. The problems started
right from the day of his enthronement as patriarch. At that
time Gregory Asbestas, Archbishop of Syracuse and one of the
leaders of the moderates, was in Constantinople. Probably, he had
come to ask the help of the Emperor and of his friend Patriarch
Methodius against the Saracens, who had attacked Sicily. Pre-
viously he had been censured by Patriarch Methodius for having
ordained the priest Zacharias, legate of Methodius to the Roman
See, as bishop of Taormina. Later on this same Methodius had
absolved him from this censure. On the day of the enthronement
of Ignatius, Archbishop Gregory was present at the ceremony and
participated in it, but Ignatius made him understand that he was
not welcome. Gregory left angrily, accusing Ignatius of not being
a bishop. Asbestas appealed to Rome but before Rome could reach
a definitive settlement upon the matter, the political and ecclesi-
astical situation in Constantinople underwent in 856 a radical
change, which made the situation still more. complicated. In a
revolutionary move, Theodora’s brother Bardas, a moderate,
with the knowledge of his nephew Michael III, removed the
extremist Theoctistus, Logothete of the Empress. The young
Michael ascended the imperial throne with his uncle Bardas as
regent, and with the support of the moderates. Patriarch Igna-
tius, instead of adapting to the change in the political scene, re-
mained faithful to the former political set-up. We can admire such
an attitude, but it made his position under Michael III] more and
more difficult. When he publicly refused to give Holy Commun-
ion to Bardas, because of rumours of immoral behaviour, he did not
improve matters. As if to put his faithfulness to the new govern-
ment to the test, Ignatius was asked to bless the veil of Theodora,
who under force from her brother Bardas had entered a monastery.
Ignatius refused; this was asking too much from him. He could
not betray his fidelity toward Theodora, who had made him pa-
triarch. Shortly afterwards he tried to intervene in favour of a leader
of the rebels, who claimed to be the son of Theodora. This was
quite unacceptable and he was forced to abdicate and banished
to Therebinthos, on suspicion of treason.
The fact of the abdication of Ignatius has long been disputed.
 2A

The studies of recent years have given convincing arguments which

do not meet serious opposition !. In order to save the Church from
further complications, Ignatius accepted the advice of his bishops
after long hesitation, and resigned the patriarchal dignity. It was
a voluntary abdication, but imposed by the circumstances. The
juridical value of it cannot be questioned.

2. PHOTIUS’ ELECTION AS PATRIARCH

A synod was assembled which elected as the new Patriarch

a layman, Photius, the learned professor of the Imperial Univer-
sity Magnaura, First Secretary of the Empire, and president of
the Senate *. Born around 820, he belonged to an old family which
was related to the dynasty of the Macedonians. He was related
to the Empress Theodora and to the regent of Michael III, Bar-
das. His brother Sergius was married to Irene, the youngest sister
of Theodora. His father Sergius—brother of Patriarch Tarasius—
had suffered persecution because of his stern orthodox convict-
ions at the time of the Iconoclasts 3. Photius had been extremely
well educated and his ‘Bibliotheca’ is a testimony to his scholarship.
His writings were to the point, without unnecessary digressions.
“If we bear in mind Photius’ scholarly activities, his interest in
the classics, and the réle he played in the transmission of classical
traditions to Christians of later generations, we will understand
more clearly certain events which took place during his ecclesias-
tical career and which have, so far, been referred to as proofs of
Photius’ ambitions and his bad will’ 4. Even his greatest enemies

4. DVORNIK 39ff; E. HERMANN, “Review of “The Photian Schism’”’

in OCP 15(1949) 220; STIERNON, op. cit. 31; V. GRUMEL, “La genése du
schisme photien” in Studi Bizantini e Neo
- Ellenici 5(1939) 177-185; P.
STEPHANOU, “La violation du compromis entre Photius et les Ignatiens’, in
OCP 24 (1955) 297 - 307.
2. IVANTSOV - PLATONOV, art. cit. n. 281, 9f on his personality and
churchmanship; F. Dvornik, ‘‘Patriarch Photius, Scholar and Statesman”
in Classical Folia 13(1959) 4ff; H. AHRWEILER, “Sur la carriére de Photius
avant son patriareat”’ in BZ 58(1965) 361.
3. DvoRNIK, “The Patriarch Photius...”, 4f; Ina Greek synaxarion
there is a commemoration of him on the 13th of March, cf. DvoRNIK, ‘‘Patri-
arch Photius, Scholar and Statesman’, 4.
Ao MMoykal, Sy.
22

could not help but praise the great scholarship of Photius nile
seemed to be the right person for the post. As a neutral figure
he could count on the support of the court because of his open-
ness and intellectual background, while his orthodoxy guaran-
teed that he did not have to fear the conservatives. Among the
monks he had probably some opponents who later became open
enemies. His interest in classical—pagan!—studies certainly played
a role in this, but so also did his endeavours to renew the monastic
spirit and to correct abuses 2. However, even the most intransi-
gent bishops recognized him as their legitimate patriarch. The
synod which elected him, rehabilitated also Gregory Asbestas who
together with two bishops of the other camp consecrated Photius
the new Archbishop of Constantinople. Peace seemed finally to
be a fact >.

This ‘peace’ lasted only two months. The reasons for the re-
volt which followed are not easy to establish, but at a synod of
conservative bishops in the Church of St. Irene, in 859, Ignatius
was proclaimed the legitimate patriarch 4. Photius was accused
of having broken his promises towards Ignatius. Which promises?
Photius had accepted the patriarchate on condition that all would
unanimously recognize him, for which reason he had reached
a compromise to please eventual opponents. Ignatius had—at his
abdication—given instructions that a patriarch was to be elected,
who was in communion with the Church. This probably excluded
Gregory Asbestas who was under censure, his case still pending °.
This compromise was reached with five Ignatian bishops under
the leadership of Metrophanes of Smyrna who had come to Pho-
tius. The text of the ‘promise’ Photius gave them, has come to us

1. PG 105, 509. For further examples, see IVANTSOV - PLATONOY, art.

Cit, Nazet oe.
2. DVORNIK 63ff; L. NEMEC, “Photius - Saint or Schismatic?” in JES
3(1966) 277.
3. Photius had not chosen Gregory Asbestas to be his consecrator. On
this issue and on the case of Asbestas, see V. GRUMEL, “Le Schisme de Gré-
goire de Syracuse’’, in EO 39 (1940) 257 - 269; STIERNON, op. cit. 16ff, 29f,
231; Dvornik, “The Patriarch Photius ...’, 16; PENNAAIOY, art. cit. 44.
4. Is this a second patriarchate, or the continuation of his first period
in office?
5. MANsI XVI 86 A, 416 B.
 23

in several versions, subject to various interpretations. All have

come from very biased Ignatian sources. }. These bishops wanted
to be sure that Photius would recognize their ordinations, hinting
that something had been wrong with Ignatius’ patriarchate. Prob-
ably their conditions involved also Photius’ adopting the Ignatian
line of policy 2. However, Photius certainly was not planning to
accept this second ‘condition’. Because of this the Ignatian bishops,
especially the five who had been the organizers of the compromise,
protested and started to plot against Photius. Dvornik sees the rea-
son for the synod of St. Irene which followed, in the disillusion of
these extremist elements of Byzantium who thought they had tied
Photius to their policy. Another synod, convoked by Photius in the
Church of the Holy Apostles to settle this question, ended in an
uproar. Even the police had to intervene*. This shows clearly
that political complications must have ‘been involved, in which
Ignatius was used by some die-hard extremists. A further synod
followed in the Church of Our Lady at Blacherna, which proclaimed
Ignatius’ patriarchate and his ordinations illegitimate, because he
had not been canonically elected.

Not all problems connected with Ignatius’ deposition have

been satisfactorily solved. Why did Ignatius go back on his previous
abdication? Was it the validity of his former patriarchate which
he wanted to safeguard? * Why did Photius never point to the
abdication of Ignatius in his reports to Rome, in his Synodicon

1. The letter of Metrophanes to the patrician Manuel, in MANSI XVI

414 - 419; The Libellus Appelationis Ignatii, in MANSI XVI 294 - 302; Vita
Ignatii per Nicetam David, in MANsI XVI 209 - 292. The text of the promise
is to be found in MANSI XVI 233, 300, 416.
2. Dvornik. 53ff.
3. Ignatius was not personally responsible for the outbreak of the
trouble, cf DVORNIK 61; he had to appear in a monk’s habit, and not in li-
turgical vestments to avoid political demonstrations.
4, Cf. STEPHANOU, ‘‘La violation ...”, 297 - 307; DVORNIK, “Das neue
Bild ...”, 40ff; STIERNON, op. cit. 30ff; The reason given at the synod of
864 fay Ignatius’ patriarchate being invalid was his uncanonical election.
Perhaps the signature of Michael HI had not been asked for in this election,
although he was already Emperor, in spite of his youth, and this could
have been the legal reason for the invalidity of Ignatius’ patriarchate. In
Em-
that case it included also an attack on the position of Theodora as
press.
24

for example? ! Did he want to solve the matter once and for
all? 2 We have to let this question rest, as it takes us too far from
our subject.

3. INVOLVEMENT OF THE CHURCH OF ROME

Probably these problems would have disappeared with time

and peace returned in the Church of Constantinople, if Rome had
not been involved. Various followers of Patriarch Ignatius sent
biased information to the Pope in Rome to win support for their
case. So doubt grew in Rome about the legality of Ignatius’ abdi-
cation as patriarch. Besides, Rome was not opposed to the idea
of intervening in the local problems of the Church of Constanti-
nople. Such an opportunity was presented, when the Emperor
Michael III invited Pope Nicholas 1 (858-867) to an Ecumenical
Council at Constantinople with the aim of finally and definitely
condemning Iconoclasm, which still had not been totally eradica-
ted, and was one of the causes of the division in the Constantino-
politan Church. At the same time as issuing his invitation, Michael
presented the Pope with the letters announcing Photius’ election
as Patriarch after the resignation of Ignatius.
A factor which played a role in this renewed attack against
Iconoclasm, was the zeal of the new Patriarch, Photius himself, to
eliminate the last remnants of the heresy, of which his own parents
had been victims. Photius’ works in general reveal a somewhat
exaggerated zeal for orthodoxy. “He never failed to point out an
heretical doctrine, and, when rejecting and criticizing its author,
used very sharp language’, said F. Dvornik?. In his sermons
Photius defended almost excessively the need of orthodoxy in
a bishop: “If the shepherd is a heretic, then he is a wolf and it

1. A synodicon is not a paper to give historical explanations. It is the

expression of the orthodoxy of the newly elected patriarch, together with
the request for communion, cf. DVORNIK 71.
2. With this declaration of the invalidity of Ignatius’ patriarchate the
problems were ‘solved’ once and for all. The matter of the abdication lost
its relevance because an invalidly ordained bishop could not abdicate. The
Ignatian bishops were also implicitly declared invalidly ordained. The sy-
nodal way of reaching this verdict was also of special importance.
3. DVORNIK, “The Patriarch Photius .. .’’, 2, 8. The zeal for orthodoxy
explains Photius’ violent protest against the addition of the filioque into the
creed. See p. 184ff.
 20

will be necessary to flee and leap away from him. If the shepherd
is orthodox, then submit to him, since he presides in the likeness
of Christ” +. So the original idea of a council against Iconoclasm
might have originated with Photius himself advising the Em-
peror. Many references in his sermons prove that Iconoclasm was
not dead at his time 2.
Pope Nicholas—a great defender of papal primacy—accepted
the invitation. He now had a chance to propagate his ideas about
the primacy in the East as well. Besides, he saw an opportunity
to claim authority over the diocese of Bulgaria. This Bulgarian
question is of great importance in the political and ecclesiastical
relations between the East and the West in the second half of
the ninth century °. To inform himself on the heresy of Icono-
clasm which was the reason of the council to which he was
invited, Pope Nicholas read the Acts of ‘the Synod of 787 (Nicea
II) against this heresy, and he was struck by the demand of Pope
Hadrian I to return Illyricum to Roman jurisdiction. Around 732
Eastern [lyricum had been transferred by the Iconoclast Emperor
Leo III from Roman jurisdiction to Constantinople in reprisal
for the intransigent attitude of the Pope in the Iconoclastic trou-
bles 4. This interest was logically extended to Bulgaria although
it was only a part of Illyricum. Certainly political reasons were
involved. It was very welcome to Pope Nicholas to control a terri-
tory so close to the Imperial: Capital. Moreover, it gave him the
opportunity to curtail the influence of the Franks who had sent
missionaries to Bulgaria®. He instructed, therefore, the legates
which he sent to Constantinople, the bishops Rodoald of Porto and
Zacharias of Anagni, to investigate the circumstances of the abdica-
tion of Ignatius; he reserved to himself, however, the final judge-

1. Quoted by G. L. Kustas, “History and Theology in Photius”, in

The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 10(1964) 46.
2. Ibid. 47; C. MANGO, The homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constan-
tinople, Washington 1958, e.g. 312.
3. This has been denied by P. STEPHANOU, “Les débuts de la que-
relle photienne vus de Rome et de Byzance” in OCP US(T952) E27 10
4. M. V. ANASTOS, “‘Fconoclasm and Imperial rule 717 - 842” in CMH
Ve de 718.
5. J. KARMIRIS, “The Schism of the Roman Church”, in Oeodoyia
21(1950) 415; B. AAOYPAA, “O matprdeyns Madtiog xal H éxoyh tov», in Ien-
yoous 6 Iahapds 38(1955) 69.
26

ment. He told them to obtain the return of Bulgaria to the juris-

diction of the Church of Rome. His letter to Photius was very
friendly in style, but he expressed his astonishment, that Photius
had been ordained in sucha short period of time from layman to
bishop. He conveyed to him also his decision to re-open the case of
Ignatius.
This action of Pope Nicholas aroused considerable surprise in
Constantinople. For them the case of Ignatius had been closed at the
synods of the holy Apostles in 859 and 861. However, for the sake
of peace, they agreed on condition that the legates themselves would
pronounce judgement at the synod. Convinced that the Pope would
approve of their efforts to strengthen Roman influence in the East,
the legates consented. They examined the case at the synod and
confirmed the decisions made previously concerning Ignatius’
condemnation. Ignatius was declared deposed and his patriar-
chate invalid. The sentence of Ignatius against Gregory Asbestas
was annulled. This synod was a great concession on the part of
Contantinople. It meant that they accepted the right of appeal
to the Pope and the right of the Roman See to re-examine aclosed
case. This had been voted upon by the council of Sardica (343)
but it had not often been applied in the East 4. On the other hand
we have to be careful in drawing too many theological conclusions
from this. There was a strong political angle. In his letter after
the synod to the Emperor Michael III Pope Nicholas wrote:
“The legates were not invited for the sake of your piety (namely
against Iconoclasm, as you had suggested) ... The reason for their
invitation is explained very clearly from the facts, namely that
the judgement on Ignatius... would remain forever, because
legates with such a great authority (as the Roman legates) had
confirmed. this judgement” ?. In other words, the support of the
Roman See was needed to strengthen the condemnation of Ignatius
which had already been decided beforehand.

We do not know what actually happened at the synod because

the Acts have been destroyed by order of the Council of Constan-
tinople in 869. The synod had been very favourable toward Roman
claims. The legates thought they had acted according to the de-

1. STIERNON, op. cit. 44; DVORNIK, ‘“‘The Patriarch Photius...’, 9

2 Oe
2. MGH Ep. VI 472.
 27

sires of their master. This was not true. Pope Nicholas was not
content with their activities. They had taken the decision into
their own hands, against the very clear instructions of Pope Nicho-
las, and nothing had been said about Bulgaria. But Pope Nicho-
las had one trump left to get his plans in this respect fulfilled.
He had not yet officially recognized Photius as legitimate pa-
triarch of Constantinople, and he had some reason not to do so.
From Constantinople the refugee monk Theognostus had come to
Rome. He was a fervent partisan of Ignatius. He pretended to
come. in the name of Ignatius who himself should have made an
appeal to the Pope !. Theognostus gave a very biased report of
the events of 864 and Pope Nicholas believed him. Misled by this
‘information’ Pope Nicholas held a synod in Rome in 863 and
condemned the Constantinopolitan synod of 861. The papal legate
Zacharias was declared guilty of having exceeded his competence,
and the case agaist Rodoald was suspended, because he was
not present at the synod but on a diplomatic mission to the court
of the Franks. Photius was condemned, and his promotion was
declared uncanonical. Ignatius was proclaimed the legitimate
patriarch, final judgement in this matter being reserved to the
Roman See. One of the reasons why Photius’ patriarchate was
uncanonical was, according to the Pope, the fact that he had been
consecrated by a suspended bishop. This and also the typical
terminology—which originated from Ignatian circles—show the
influence of Theognostus 2. Until his arrival in Rome, the fact
of Photius’ consecration by Gregory Asbestas had not been known.
The decisions of the Roman Synod were conveyed to Con-
stantinople, but there an absolute silence was the answer. Finally
in 865 a letter came from the Emperor Michael HI. This letter
has not been preserved, but we know its content from the papal
answer *. In very offensive language the Emperor expressed his

1. DVORNIK 96. This appeal was in 861 denied by Ignatius. On the per-
son of Theognostus, see IVANTS OV
- PLATONOV, art. cit. n. 280, 125. Dvor-
nik stresses very strongly the importance of the Ignatian influence on the
Popes, DvoRNIK 85ff, 96ff, 130, 186ff; the arguments of Stiernon do not
really weaken the position of Dvornik, cf. STIERNON, op. Gilie SYA, Se WEY
2. Cf. MGH Ep. VI 515 “rapax et scelestus adulter”, “adulter et perva-
sor’ etc.
3. MGH Ep. VI 454 - 487.
28

disappointment about the behaviour of the Pope. He might have

had a greater appreciation for the goodwill which had been
shown to the Roman See at the Synod of 861. After all, this
synod had not been called against Ignatius, but against Iconoclasm.
Pope Nicholas refuted very elaborately the various accusa-
tions and arguments of the Emperor. His letter used very strong
language, and is an important document in the history of the
development of the papal primacy. The universal care of the Roman
Church forall other churches is based not on canon 6 of Nicea (325),
but on the person of Peter, the Pope wrote. The violence of this let-
ter was also inspired by the new developments in Bulgaria. In 864
the Khagan of the Bulgars, Boris, had accepted Baptism from
Constantinople, and the Bulgarian Church had thus come under
Byzantine jurisdiction. The Emperor Michael had been his god-
parent. This had been a great disappointment for Pope Nicholas’
policy. However, the Pope did not want to cut off all further rela-
tions, and he ended his letter in a more friendly way, express-
ing the hope that a settlement would be reached.

He appeared to be justified. The ecclesiastical situation in

Bulgaria changed soon to his advantage. With pride Boris bore
the name of his god-parent Michael, a sign of his dedication to
Constantinople. But Constantinople had an obligation too: Boris
wanted his own Patriarch, and hoped Constantinople would
grant him this favour. When this desire, however, did not stand
much chance of being realized from that side, he turned to Rome.
Now it was the Byzantines’ turn to be disappointed. Seeing and
hearing the anti-Greek attitudes and practices of the newly ar-
rived Latin missionaries, they were deeply hurt. Rome immediate-
ly reacted gratefully. Formosus of Porto and Paul of Populonia
were sent to Bulgaria together with missionaries, and a long
letter answering the scrupulous questions of Boris!. However,
the Pope did not yet send a patriarch; for the moment a bishop
would have to suffice. Boris was quite satisfied.
At the same time a delegation was sent to Constantinople
carrying letters for the Emperor ?, for Photius? and _ others,

AS Pordss5 92%
2. Ibid. 488 - 512.
3. Ibid. 588 - 540.
 29

using strong and sometimes offensive language. Pope Nicholas

apparently felt strong enough to start a diplomatic war, and to
see his will done. The legates were to accompany Formosus and
Paul on their way to Bulgaria, and then to continue to Constanti-
nople, but at the Byzantine border they were stopped by an offi-
cial of the Empire. On seeing the letters he refused them entrance,
and then asked further instructions 1%.

4. BREAK BETWEEN THE TWO CHURCHES

In Constantinople. Photius reacted. A synod condemned the

‘errors’ of the missionaries in Bulgaria. The decisions were made
known to the legates who had been stopped at the border, and
who had returned to the court of Boris. Then Photius sent his
famous Encyclical to the Oriental Patriarchates describing the
devastating influence of the activities of the Latin missionaries
in Bulgaria; he enumerated various ‘errors’ (mostly liturgical
differences) and especially the filioqgue. He invited the patriarchs
to come to a great synod in Constantinople to deal with these
matters, and with the complaints which had arisen in East and
West against Pope Nicholas, and finally to confirm the Council
of 787 against Iconoclasm *. In the fall of 867 this synod conven-
ed. It dealt with the various questions, and condemned Pope
Nicholas ?.

We should not be too surprised by this violent reaction of

Photius. It was not a reaction of Photius alone. Political and
ecclesiastical issues were’ connected in this case to a very high
degree. A council could not be called in those days unless it was
the express will of the Emperor, and so the Synod ‘of 867
certainly took place under the supervision and agreement of the
Emperor. The same is true for the ‘condemnation’ of Pope Nicholas.
In this respect the Emperor thought in terms of the situation in
Constantinople where he could depose or reinstate a patriarch.

4. DVORNIK 116.
2. PG 102, 721-742; F. M. ROSSEJKIN, “Okruzhnoe poslanie Fotia,
Patriarkha Konstantinopol’skago”; in Bogoslovski Vestnik (1915) I 122-
158.
3. F. DvoRNIK, The idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the legend
of the Apostle Andrew, Cambridge 1958, 250.
30

In Rome, however, he knew very well that his influence was not
as great as in Constantinople. For that reason he appealed to
Louis Il of the Franks, promising him the imperial title if he
cooperated in the deposition of the Pope. Apparently Louis was
intent on the title, but not to the extent of becoming an obedient
‘servant’ of the Emperor. He stayed on the side of the West ts
Had the Synod been against the Western Church as such, the Emper-
or could never have asked the cooperation of Louis H. It was an
action against Pope Nicholas for political and ecclesiastical reasons,
which were both connected. By his Bulgarian policy and by the
‘erroneous’ teachings of the Latin missionaries, Pope Nicholas
had endangered both the political and ecclesiastical autonomy
and integrity of the Empire ?. Yet we should not forget that the
Synod was not only aimed against Pope Nicholas. Photius’ zeal
for orthodoxy also played a réle; perhaps even the prime role.
The Synod of 867 is the celebration of the victory over all heresies,
as Photius’ speech at the end of the synod said. Therefore, we do
not find any attacks on the Pope, or on these ‘errors’ or even on
the filioque in this homily. It only condemned all heresies in
general *®. The directness and official character of this synod were
aimed to impress Boris and to turn him away from his leanings
towards Rome. In this it succeeded. In our theological reflection
we shall come back to the theological implications of this synod.
This is why we have dealt with it more extensively *.
Two legates, Zacharias of Chalcedon and Theodore of Lao-
dicea, went to Rome to take the Acts of this synod to Pope Nicho-
las. They never reached Rome, but vague reports from the Pope’s
own legates who returned from Bulgaria, made him aware of the
situation. His reply was an anti-Greek campaign, for which he
invoked the help of Hincmar of Reims and other Frankish bishops.
They were to answer the Greek accusations. The Pope even pre-
pared a synod in Rome, but he died in November 867. Hadrian
II (867-872) became his successor.

1. STIERNON, op. cit. 67.

2. AAOYPAA, art. cit. 71; F. DVORNIK, Byzance et la primauté romaine,
Paris 1964, 105f; DVORNIK, “The Patriarch Photius... ’, 34.
3. KUuSTAS, art. cit. 59; MANGO, op. cit. 312; I. KAPMIPH, «O ratorcp-
is Datos xual 7 ev Kovotavtwourdder sbvodocg 700 867», in “ExxAnoia 31(1954)

4. See p. 165f.
 3t

Suddenly, however, the political situation in Constantinople

was changed by a palace revolution. Michael III was assassinated
by his co-emperor and old pupil Basil, who took theimperial throne
under the name of Basil I. Naturally, he could not count on the
support of the progressive party which had favoured Michael III.
Photius, who had been too close to Bardas and Michael, was thus
forced to abdicate and Ignatius became patriarch again. In this
way Basil hoped to gain the support of the Ignatian minority,
and perhaps of the Pope, with whom he made contact immediately.
Having participated in the Synod of 867, he made sure that
the Acts never reached Rome. The Pope was informed of the
new situation, in which Ignatius was reinstated ‘just as the
Pope wanted’, and the Emperor suggested that Pope Hadrian
make provisions concerning the Photian bishops. Basil hoped
thus to find a solution to the difficult ecclesiastical situation
in Constantinople, without hurting the feelings of the majority
which sided with Photius. He could not afford to have their open
enmity !. A mission to Rome shortly afterwards, consisting of
delegates from both parties, failed, because the leader of the
Photian faction, Peter of Sardes, was drowned during the
crossing in a storm. Hence Pope Hadrian, who was known as a
mild and open-minded person, came totally under the influence
of Ignatian information *. He held a synod in Rome (869) in
which he fiercely condemned Photius and the Council of 867 for
having judged a Pope. The Acts were ordered to be burnt, and
he confirmed all the decisions of his predecessor against Photius.
The decisions of this Roman Synod were to be taken to Constan-
tinople, where at a synod the Byzantine bishops were to give sat-
isfaction for their great mistake of 867, by signing a “Libellus
Satisfactionis” °.
This new synod in Constantinople which is the eighth Ecu-
menical Council of the Roman Catholic Church, was a great fail-

4. STIERNON, op. cit. 69; H. GREGOIRE, “The Amorians and Macedo-

nians 842 - 1025”, in CMH IV, I, 117f.; A. BuRG, “Paus Johannes VIII en
Constantinopel” in COH 5(1952 - 1953) 271.
2. At first Pope Hadrian adopted a more liberal policy on the Eastern
question, cf. STIERNON, op. cit. 74.
3. Cf. MANSI XVI 122 - 134, 372 - 380. The acts of the Roman synod
are read into the acts of the Council of 869 (in the seventh session).
32

ure. It began with only 12 bishops, apart from Ignatius himself.

At the end their number, including the Patriarch, had increased
to 103, but this was only a small faction of the Byzantine episco-
pate. Basil had hoped for a synod which would bring peace and
order in the Church of Constantinople. The Roman legates could
perhaps overlook the fact that the majority of the bishops and
clergy remained faithful to Photius, but the Emperor could not.
He needed the support of these bishops and clergy, since his
popularity with the Ignatians had never been great. This desire
not to antagonize either side can be seen in the demand of
Baanes to hear Photius. Baanes spoke at the synod in the name
of the Emperor and the Senate. He did not want to condemn Pho-
tius without hearing him. This is a clear indication that the Igna-
tians did not have the majority behind them as their partisans
liked to suggest.
The Roman legates felt discontented. They experienced the hos-
tility of their confreres, and this affected their attitude adversely.
Despite the ‘Roman’ language which was used at the synod, one
cannot conclude that the Ignatian bishops present at the council
shared the Roman point of view. For the sake of their case they were
willing to speak ina Roman way, without accepting the Roman con-
tent of these words. The Photians kept themselves apart, so as to de-
monstrate their disappointment and sorrow that Rome could believe
so easily the stories of the extremist party !. Photius was condemned
and excommunicated and the Libellus Satisfactionis was signed.

5. TOWARDS PEACE IN CONSTANTINOPLE

The Emperor had hoped for a reconciliation. Instead the

situation had worsened. The frictions within the Church of Con-
stantinople had merely deepened, and only a small part of the faith-
ful supported the Roman way of handling the matter. Nor did
this council bring any advantage to Rome. Boris apparently
impressed by the action of 867, had changed sides again, and
had turned to Constantinople. The Council of 869 had confirmed
this move much to the discomfiture of the Roman Legates 2.
But because of the condemnation of the Photian clergy, the

14. DVORNIK 150ff.

2. Tbidsy Asal:
 33
Church of Constantinople began to. suffer a great lack of priests.
To find a solution for these problems an embassy came to Rome
in 871 under the direction of the well-known monk Theognostus.
He carried letters from the Emperor and from Ignatius. [gna-
tius asked the Pope to mitigate his judgement about the Photian
clergy, and at least to allow them to be ordained to a higher rank,
and to be used in Bulgaria!. The Emperor complained about
the sad situation of the Churchin Constantinople where more
than 200 bishops, being followers of Photius, were shut out from
the official Church, and many priests were laicized; the lower
clergy were excluded from receiving a higher rank.
Pope Hadrian gave his answer in a letter of November 10,
871, to the Emperor *. He confirmed his approval of the Synod
of 869, and refused to revoke its decisions. He even threatened
Ignatius, in order. to stop his activities in the Church of Bulgaria,
and also those of the missionaries working there. This proves
that Ignatius should not be considered as ‘papal’ as has been
done in the past 3.
After Pope Hadrian died in 872, his successor John VIII (872-
882) at first followed the same line of policy. He even planned
te remove the Greek missionaries from the Bulgarian diocese and
to restore Roman jurisdiction. For this purpose he wrote one letter
in 873, and in 874 [875] a second letter, to Khagan Boris to remind
him of his allegiance to the Roman Church, and informing him of
the consequences of the activities of the Patriarch and the Greek
clergy. He emphasized the privileges of the Roman See which had
the power to bind and to loose. It was on this basis that Photius
had been condemned and Ignatius restored to power. The condi-
tion for this reinstatement had been that Ignatius would respect
the claims of Rome in Bulgaria. The Patriarch,however, did not
seem to fulfil these conditions, the Pope continued. He acted worse
than Photius and therefore risked canonical punishment *. Similar

4. Dvornik, “The Patriarch Photius... .”’, 33 - 35.

2. MGH Ep. VI'759 - 761.
3. STIERNON, op. cit. 167. On the excommunication of Ignatius, see
St. VAN MELIS, ‘‘Paus Johannes VIII en Bulgarije” in COH 4(1951 - 1952)
193f, 199, and also BURG, art. cit. 276f who does not share the views of Van
Melis.
4. MGH Ep. VII 277, 294.
34

complaints were expressed in the letter to the Emperor. Ignatius

had invaded Bulgaria, violating the rights of the Roman See, and
for this reason was summoned to a tribunal in Rome *.
This request was too harsh for Byzantine ears. Emperor Basil’s
answer contained another suggestion: let the case be investigated
again and settled in Constantinople itself. Then unity would be
restored.

Pope John accepted this suggestion. A more lenient attitude

might be useful. The political situation in Italy contributed to this.
Southern Italy was at the time under severe attack from the Sara-
cens. Various princes had rebelled against the Pope, and in 878
the Count of Spoleto occupied Rome, and appeared outside the
walls of Saint Peter’s. Military help from the Emperor could be
welcome, and it would thus be wise to stay on good terms ®.
Besides, Pope John had moreover a sincere desire to restore unity
within the Church of Constantinople, as his letter to the pri-
micerian Gregory witnesses °. It was also an excellent opportu-
nity to have the Bulgarian issue finally solved on his terms.
Pope John accordingly accepted the suggestion. He sent
Paul of Ancona and Eugenius of Ostia as his legates to Constan-
tinople, and not Zacharias of Anagni, as the Emperor had probably
requested 4. Armed with seven letters, the embassy went on its
way. The letters were addressed to Boris of Bulgaria, to his brother,
to the Prince Peter, who had been the head of the Bulgarian mis-
sion at the Council of 869, to the Greek missionaries working in

iy Ubid= 296:
2. On the person of John VIII see A. LAPOTRE, l'Europe et le Saint-
Siege, I, Le pape Jean VIII, Paris 1895; VAN MELIS, art. cit. 191; BURG, art.
cit. 269. Pope John was a man of weak health, but very energetic, friendly,
charitable. He was, however, also very direct in pursuing his goals, to the extent
of being intransigent. On the political situation in Italy in those days, see MGH
Ep. VII 229 where Pope John thanked the Emperors for having sent troops to
defend ‘the patrimony of Saint Peter’. See also H. G. Beck, “Vom kirch-
lichen Friihmittelalter zur gregorianischen Reform” in Handbuch der- Kir-
chengeschichte (Hrsg. von H. Jedin), Freiburg i Br. 1966, III, 1, 209; HERGEN-
ROETHER, op. cit. 382; B. ETEPANIAOY, *ExxAyjoactix? “lotooia adm adoxrjc méxor
onpeoov, “ABjva. 1959, 361; ©. EYETPATIAAOY, «llept tio onuactag tod feeod
Owttov év tH totopian to} oytouatos» in “HxxAnoiactixy) *AAjPeva 24(1904) 425.
3. MGH Ep. VII 142.
4. Ibid. 64 - 65. See also DVORNIK 172.
 39

Bulgaria, and to Ignatius. There were two letters for the Emperor.
Pope John was most determined. Boris was urged to return to Rome,
and not toremain united with Constantinople. “We will receive you
with honour’, he told him. In his relations with Constantinople
Boris would run the risk of contamination by heresy or error, as had
been the case many times. Only Rome could provide adequate
protection in this respect }. Prince Peter received the same mis-
sive. The Greek clergy was declared. excommunicated, and was
urged to leave Bulgaria immediately *.
The letter to Ignatius was also strongly worded; he was
ordered to withdraw his bishops and priests from Bulgaria within
thirty days. The weapons Pope John used, such as the threat
of excommunication, show the importance he attached to the
issue 3. Because of his death, however, Ignatius never received
the letter. Writing to the Emperor, Pope John asked him to co-
operate fully towards the success of the mission of his legates. He
expressed his sorrow that the Church of Constantinople was still
in discord and contention. ‘““Apparently the efforts of the Roman
See did not have too much success”. Fully aware of his universal
care for the Church, as successor of Peter, the Pope promised to
take action. He sent two legates, Eugenius and Paul, with
letters and instructions to do everything to restore peace +.
However, when the Roman legates arrived in Constantinople,
they found a totally different situation from what they had ex-
pected: Ignatius had died (October 23, 877) and Photius had once
again ascended the patriarchal throne”.

What had happened in the meantime in Constantinople?

After 867, Photius had been banished to a monastery outside the
city ®. But the majority of the clergy had remained faithful to
him. The Emperor understood that the Synod of 869 had been too
rigid towards Photius and his followers. He could not rule with-
out the support of the moderate party which was in favour of Pho-

. MGH Ep. VII 65 - 66. See also VAN MELIS, art. cit. 262.
_MGH Ep.
N= VII 66 - 67.
_ Ibid. 62 - 63. See also BURG, art. cit. 275f.
MGH Ep. VII 64 - 65.
DVORNIK 173.
Police Git.
BR
OV
BS
36

tius. It was unfortunate that the Pope did not understand this
situation, and held on so rigidly to the decisions of his Council.
Basil, therefore, started moving towards a more liberal attitude
to Photius and his partisans. He called the old patriarch back
from his exile and entrusted him with the education of his sons.
He gave him an appartment in the imperial palace’, and Pho-
tius started teaching again at the University of Constantinople 2.
This change at the Byzantine court in favour of Photius was a blow
to the Ignatian followers, especially the extremists among them.
Various stories and legends tried to blame these developments on
the machinations of Photius *. The partisans of Photius, however,
tried to encourage him to make use of the situation and to take
over the patriarchate. Photius himself intimated this at the
second session of the Synod of 879-880 4.

During this session Photius gave an account of his reconcil-

iation with Ignatius. He told the synod how he had refused to
consider Ignatius guilty of the sufferings which his brothers had
undergone. Even Ignatius had recommended his friends to Pho-
tius, and Photius had taken them under his protection ®. This
reconciliation has been denied by Photius’ enemies and the Igna-
tian sources, but the arguments in favour of it seem strong °.
Even if one takes into consideration the fact that the Fathers of
the Synod of 879 were mostly followers and friends of Photius,
one cannot assume that Photius would have appealed to their
knowledge of the situation with an apparent lie. Besides the Ro-
man legates would have objected.
Ignatian sources make mention of Photius’ acting as a bishop
during the last illness of Ignatius, which they regarded as Photius
meddling, but as F. Dvornik asserts, this can very well be explained
as the result of this reconciliation. Ignatius for example had never
declared the consecration of Photius invalid 7. He himself had

. Ibid. 1638f.
. THEOPHANES CONTINUATUS, Vita Basilii, ed. Bonn 1838, 276f.
. DVORNIK 164.
. MANSI XVII 424 CD.
. Ibidem.
. DVORNIK 167ff.
=
WN. Ibid. 172. On the expression ‘coadjutor cum jure successionis’
NOaFr
which
 37

probably been in favour ofa final settlement at a synod in Constan-

tinople, and had known about the request of the Emperor for
Roman legates to achieve this reconciliation, but he had not
lived long enough to see this happen, and after his death Photius
ascended the patriarchal throne again. Shortly afterwards Photius
canonized his predecessor. It has been suggested that the newly-
found mosaic of Ignatius in the Saint Sophia was commissioned
by Photius himself}.

It is also interesting to read the account which Photius himself

gave of his reinstatement at the second session of the Synod of
8792. At first he did not want to accept, but finally after the
synodical requests of the Oriental Patriarchs he agreed. It is clear
from the letter of Theodosius of Antioch, read at the synod of
879-880 3, that Photius had notified the Oriental Patriarchs
through Cosmas of Antioch. Moreover, he was urged to accept
by the Emperor himself, and now —he said—the letters of Pope
John also supported this common request. While this was a great
joy for him, causing him to meditate upon the goodness of God,
--said Photius— the sudden change in the situation came as a great
shock to him. He contemplated the attitude of Pope John, his love
for man, his love for justice, and realized how much the Pope
desired the unity of the Churches, and harmony among the
Christian people; ‘“‘as all who are here know’ he said to the Fa-
thers of the Synod. 4.

Dvornik uses, see A. MICHEL, Review of DvVORNIK’s ‘“‘The Photian Schism”,

in Historisches Janrbuch 70(1951) 477.
4, STIERNON, op. cit. 178; DVORNIK, “The Patriarch Photius ...”, 35ff.
However, C. MANGO, “Die Mosaiken” in H. KAHLER, Die Hagia Sophia, Ber-
lin 1967, 55, thinks this icon is the work of Ignatius’ friends after 886 when
Photius had left the patriarchate again. See also C. MANGO, The mosaics of
St. Sophia at Istanbul, Washington 1962, 57.
2. MANS! XVII 424f.
3. Ibid. 444f. f
4. Ibid. 424 C,...a¢ mavteo of cvunapdvtes ovvertatavta. BURG, art.
cit. 26 does not exclude Pope John’s having known about the reconciliation
of Photius and Ignatius.
38

6. A SYNOD OF UNION

Peace in the Byzantine Church finally seemed near. The two

opponents were reconciled. What remained to be done was to
make this reconciliation official, which ought to take place at
an Ecumenical Council. Too many questions remained to be solved.
What was to be decided about the ordination of the Photian and
Ignatian bishops? What of the dioceses which had two bishops,
one Ignatian, the other a follower of Photius?

The death of Ignatius however had changed the situation.

Paul and Eugenius had not received any instructions to cover
this eventuality. After all, Pope John could hardly have foreseen
such a development in Constantinople. Afraid to go beyond their
instructions and probably reminded of the fate of their colleagues
Rodoald and Zacharias, the legates abstained from contacts with
the new patriarch 1. This greatly disappointed the Emperor and
Photius. They could not do anything but try and get in touch
with the Pope again. A new embassy under Theodore of Patras ?,
carrying letters from Photius, the Emperor and the clergy of
Constantinople was dispatched to Rome. The Emperor asked
Pope John to recognize Photius as Patriarch, and invited him to
a synod to be held in Constantinople to settle once and for all
the remaining problems concerning the unity of the Church. Pho-
tius informed the Pope of his reinstatement on the patriarchal
throne, and how he had been pressed to accept by the unanimous
consent of the bishops and the Emperor. The letter of the clergy
was a strong proclamation of the unanimous support of Photius
by people and clergy 3.
Upon hearing these reports and reading these letters the Pope
summoned a synod in Rome inviting his closest collaborators
to discuss the changed situation in Constantinople 4. With
an appeal to his supreme power to bind and loose, given to

1. Did the Emperor purposely omit to mention the death of Ignatius

in his ietter to the Pope, or had the letter been sent while Ignatius was still
alive? Cf DvorNIK 171 ad 1.
2. V. GRUMEL, “Qui fit Penvoyé de Photius aupres de Jean VIII?” in
EO 32(1933) 439 - 443.
3. DVORNIK 173f.
4. HERGENROETHER, op. cit. II 381.
 39

him in Christ’s promise to Peter, the Pope declared Photius

absolved from his censures. He recognized him as Patriarch, and
considered his ordinations valid on condition that he would ask
publicly for mercy before a synod, that he reconcile himself
to the Ignatian bishops and clergy, and finally that he abstain
from all missionary activity in Bulgaria. He was not to send any
new priests there and was to recall the missionaries working in
that country. The decisions of this synod were formulated in letters
to the Emperor Basil and his sons?, to Photius 2, to the Bishops
of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the other patriar-
chates?, and to the Ignatian bishops and priests?. The two Roman
legates in Constantinople received a special set of instructions,
the so-called commenttorium, signed by all bishops of the Roman
synod °. In the person of Cardinal Peter of S. Chrysogonus, the
Pope added a new member to the Roman embassy. To him he
gave also a letter for the two waiting in Constantinople. He repri-
manded them for not having acted according to his will® He
urged them to correct this. Probably this reprimand meant that
Paul and Eugenius should not have avoided contact with Photius,
and should have concelebrated with him. This can be interpreted
from his letter to Photius 7, in which he explains why they had
not sought contact, without saying whether it was right or wrong.
Before we speak about the synod itself, a word should be said
about our sources, and the problems connected with them.

. MGH Ep. VII 167 - 176.

Ibid. 181 - 186.
Ibid. 477 - 184.
Ibid. 186 - 187.
. Ibid. 188 - 190, in the note (=MANsI XVII 468 - 472).
Ke
won. Ibid. 188 - 190.
Ant

7. App. (=Appendix) 907ff RV. See also DvORNIK 169f. and against:
STIERNON, op. cit. 183; according to BuRG, art. cit. 27 the legates should
have returned to Rome.
 CiHvASP AER: 21

THE AUTHENTICITY AND VALUE OF THE SOURCES

There is no reason to deny the historicity of the Synod of

879-880 itself, as has been done in the past’. A few problems
however, make us suspicious. Firstly we have two versions of the
letters which Pope John sent to Constantinople, which are very
different. Secondly we have to establish if the Acts we have are
really the authentic acts of this Synod, or a falsification of later
centuries.

4. TWO VERSIONS OF THE PAPAL LETTERS

As we have seen the following letters were sent to Constan-

tinople to be read to the Synod there: one addressed to the
Emperors, one to Photius, one to the bishops and clergy of Con-
stantinople, and one to the followers of Ignatius. The commo-
nitorium contained special instructions for the Roman legates.
Of all the letters — except for the letter to the Ignatians — we
have a double version: the Latin version of the Register of
Pope John VIII, and a Greek version inserted in the Acts of
the Synod of 879-880. These two versions are very different. Of
the commonitorium, only the text, read at the third session of
the Synod, has been preserved. For our theological analysis the
variants of these two versions will provide us with a rich source
of information, but first we have to deal briefly with the existence
of these two versions itself; why there were two versions, how reli-
able each of them is, whether any have been falsified, and who
was responsible and why. We shall briefly compare both versions.

1. DVORNIK 202ff; M. JUGIE, Le Schisme byzantin, Paris, 1941, 102 no-

ticed that an objective study has been made very difficult because of the
one sided anti - Photian sources which wanted to question everything. They
are only partly to be believed, if not totally rejected.
 Al

The letter to the Emperors }

In the version found in the Register of Pope John VIII the
Pope tried to emphasize his authority over the Church of Con-
stantinople. His expressions in this respect are a little weakened
in the second version, although often using the same terms.
From the letter of the Pope it can be inferred that the Emperor
had requested his recognition of Photius. John met this request —
he wrote — although he rebuked the Emperor for having rena-
biltated Photius without having consulted Rome, because Pho-
tius had been condemned at a-synod. The version read at the
synod reads differently: the Pope regretted that the Emperor
had not waited for the arrival of the Roman legates. The Register
version then gives a long series of examples showing that a Pope
can indeed go back on a previous decision. The Constantino-
politan version uses the examples to prove that a synod can
lose its validity. It even makes the Pope say: “one synod seems
to annul another’. In the same way the condition set by Pope John
for the recognition of Photius—that he should publicly apologize
before the council and ask for mercy—is much weaker in the ver-
sion of the Acts. Photius’ orthodoxy is sufficient basis for him
to be recognized again as patriarch. Pope John stresses that he
can restore Photius to the patriarchal throne because he enjoys
this power in view of his universal primacy. On this basis he
could recall the sentence against Photius pronounced in 869.
The version of Constantinople reads differently: Photius_ is
restored because he deserved it. However, the reference to the
papal primacy remains and is considered an argument against the
synod of 869: because the Pope can bind and loose, he can also
dissolve the authority of a council. The question of the sentence
against Photius is extended to the synod itself.
The following passage of the Constantinopolitan version refers
to the difficulties and frictions of the preceding years within the
local church of Constantinople. Their cause lies in the lack of
respect shown by the Emperor for patriarch and clergy. The Em-
peror should honour the patriarch as his mediator with God, as
the one who cares for his spiritual well being. It is a long treatise
on the relation between church and state, to use modern termi-
42

nology. The content of this passage, in much weaker terms and

much shorter, is found also in the version of the Register, at the
end, where Pope John sends a special exhortation to the Emperor.
The papal letter then speaks extensively about the promo-
tion of laymen to the episcopacy. This was —at least legally—
the reason for Photius’ condemnation in 869. While the Roman
version demands that Photius break with this custom, the Con-
stantinopolitan version speaks only of a request and suggests that
the case of Photius had rightly been made an exception!
As a sign of gratitude for his positive attitude towards Photius,
the Emperor should exercise no further jurisdiction over Bulgaria.
However, what is a conditio sine qua non in the version of the
Register is formulated in Constantinople as a friendly request.
The Roman version exhorts the Emperor to recall from exile all
bishops and clergy ordained by Ignatius and to do his best to re-
store harmony in the Church of Constantinople.
The version of the letter read in Constantinople contains one
feature not existing in the Roman version: the synods held against
Photius should not be used against him. They are called ‘unjust’
synods. The reason given is that Popes Hadrian and Nicholas
had not accepted them either.
The threat of excommunication to those who do not want
to unite with Photius, is worded in the Constantinopolitan version
in milder terms than in the version of the Register.
The letter to Photius '
In the Roman version of his letter the Pope, after briefly
praising Photius’ wisdom, expressed his joy that all were ‘in unison’
with Photius, but he regretted that Photius had not consulted
Rome before his election. However, on condition that he gave
public satisfaction before the synod and apologized, the Pope
would forgive him and consent to his resumption of the patriarchal
dignity. The letter read at the synod in Constantinople shows clear
differences. The wisdom of Photius is praised in much more abun-
dant terms, and great joy is expressed over his restoration to the
patriarchate. This version mentions that the Roman legates had
first refused to make contact with Photius and to concelebrate
with him. They should not be blamed for this, the Pope said,

1. App. 844ff.
 43
because they had no instructions for such a situation, Rome not
knowing of the death of Ignatius. Instead of the demand for an
apology, the Constantinople version requests Photius to be thank-
ful to Rome and to mention the help which he had received
from Rome in being rehabilitated. In both versions the promotion
of laymen to the episcopacy receives attention, but the Bulgarian
question is not mentioned in the version of Constantinople. On
the other hand, this version emphatically declared the Council of
869 invalid with a reference to Pope Hadrian himself.

The letter to the Bishops of Constantinople}

The letter begins with the expression of the joy and gladness
of the Pope at the unity achieved in the Church of Constanti-
nople, but in the version of the Register of Pope John VIII it goes
on to deal with the matter of the promotion of laymen. With a
reference to his primacy the Pope urges the bishops to eliminate
this custom. His predecessor Hadrian I had accepted Tarasius
as patriarch because of his orthodox profession of faith, although
he had been disappointed by Tarasius’ having been elected
from the laity, and from a military position. The Constantino-
politan version has no mentionof disappointment. In making
an exception of Photius, Pope John follows the example of his
predecessor Hadrian I who recognized Tarasius, although he had
been elected contrary to the regulations of the canons. The custom
of promoting laymen to the episcopacy.is rejected in even
stronger terms, but the formulation is such that both Tarasius
and Photius are excluded. Tarasius was not subject to the canonical
prohibition: he was a man who had shown himself well able to be
a pastor and to teach the faith. This is true also in the case of
Photius. Very diplomatically the hope is expressed that these
exceptions willnot become the rule. While the Roman version urges
the bishops to restore Bulgaria to Roman jurisdiction, the version
read in Constantinople uses more sympathetic language, and
‘exhorts them to do whatever they can. As in the other letters,
there is a difference between the two versions concerning the ques-
tion of Photius’ acceptance. In the Constantinopolitan version,
Photius is invited not to dishonour the goodness of the Church of
Rome, but openly to express his thanks for the favour and goodwill

1. App. 1140ff.
44
ch of
shown by Rome in accepting him as the legitimate patriar
that
Constantinople. The Roman version had made the condition
Photius must ask for mercy at the synod.

The Commonitorium *
The commonitorium has been preserved only in the version
read at the Council of 879-880. It is a document of eleven points,
addressed to the legates and giving them instructions and regu-
lations about their behaviour, and describing in detail questions
of protocol, such as their visit to Emperor and Patriarch, and other
matters concerning their mission in Constantinople.
The legates were to bring the greetings of Pope John to the
Emperor, to hand him the letters of the Pope, (chapter I), and also
to convey orally to him the content of the letters (chapter II).
They were to visit Photius, give him the letter addressed to
him, and greet him, in the name of the Pope, as brother and fellow-
minister (chapter HI). Rome had heard the Emperors’ request to
accept Photius for the sake of peace, and Photius should therefore
be accepted at a synod in the presence of the legates, according
to the instructions of the Pope, and Photius should express his
gratitude and proclaim the merciful attitude of the Roman Church
(chapter IV). The legates were to make sure that unity would be
restored under Photius as patriarch. Bishops who were in exile
because of their separation from him, should be accepted back into
communion, and those who had been ordained first should be
restored to their sees, the others should receive a pension (chapter V).
The legates were to see that the letters of the Pope (“who has
the care of all Churches’) were read at the synod, were accepted
by the Fathers, and the content put into practice (chapter VI).
Excommunication should be pronounced against those die-hards
who refused communion with Photius (chapter VII). After Photius
no other layman should ever be promoted to the episcopacy, as
had been said in the letters, (chapter VIII). The legates should
firmly express the will of the Pope warning Photius that he should
not perform any more ordinations in Bulgaria, or send the pallium
there. Otherwise the canons would be applied against him (chap-
ter IX). What had been decreed against Photius under Pope
Hadrian II was rejected, and declared null and void, and the

1. App. 1410ff.
 45

Synod of 869 was not to be counted among the other Holy Coun-
cus of the Church (chapter X). A last exhortation was addressed
to the legates to follow these instructions carefully if they wanted
to stay in the Pope’s favour, (chapter XI).
Comparing the content of the commonitorium with the two
versions of the letters, it becomes clear that the commonitorium
breathes the same spirit as the Constantinopolitan version of
the letters read at the Synod. If there were originally two versions
of the commonitorium, Chapter IV would probably have had
in its Roman version the request for the apology, and Chapter
X would probably have been worded in another way. The recensions
of the letters according to the Register of Pope John VIII considered
the actions of Pope Hadrian and of the Council of 869 valid. It
was only his papal authority which allowed Pope John to reconsid-
er the sentence pronounced against Photius at that synod.

2. A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

The Register of Pope John VII

When considering the letters of the Register of Pope John
Vill, it has to be kept in mind that the original Register is no
longer extant. The only existing copy is an eleventh century
manuscript, made at the Monte Cassino School of Abbot Desiderius
(1058-1087)1.At Monte Cassino the reform of the Papacy, which
started in the second half of the eleventh century, was planned. This
may be.the reason why Monte Cassino was interested in the
Register of Pope John VIII. This manuscript must have been
made from the originalof the Register. However, the complete
Register was not copied. A part had remained in Rome and was
used there. The manuscript preserves the papal letters between
876 and 882. The letters of the first four years of John’s pontif-
icate have been lost; so also have some later ones, because the
Register did not give a full account of the correspondence of Pope
John VIII. This might be due to the fact that the papal registrars
had not yet attained the perfection of later years. The Monte
Cassino manuscript is therefore not a selection, but a careful copy

1. E. CASPAR, “Studien zum Register Johanns VII’, in Neues Archiv

der Gesellschaft fiir dltere deutsche Geschichtskunde 36(1911) 85ff. See also
VAN MELIS, art. cit. 191.
46

faith-
of the original Register which was not complete. The copy’s
are pe-
fulness is supported by various indications: the mistakes
as the leaving out of sentenc es.
culiar errors of copyists, such
l text he left blank the
When the copyist could not read the origina
amount of space required by the original manusc ript +.
Registration did not mean literal copying of the letters of
the Pope which were sent out. The registrar received outlines
of the letters which he used with a certain freedom. Addresses,
greetings and endings were left to the inspiration of the registrar,
and therefore are often missing in the letters, or extremely short.
This freedom also explains why we find exactly the same passages
in different letters. Here the registrar copied his own formula *.
It cannot be established how great his freedom was, and certainly
some letters were prepared very carefully. The outlines of the
letters which Pope John sent to Constantinople in 879 were pre-
pared very well and often changed. Some of these corrections on
the margin of the outlines have been included in the text by the
registrar 3. We may therefore, conclude that the letters of Pope
John, as recorded in his Register, give a faithful account of hisown
ideas, although the text received in Constantinople may have
varied in detail.
The Version according to the Acts
In solving the question of the second version of the letters
of Pope John VII, Dvornik points to the letter which Cardinal
Peter brought for the two legates who were waiting in Constanti-
nople for further instructions 4. In this letter the Pope said that
he had expected some initiative from his legates, and some common
sense in assessing the situation and in acting accordingly. The
Pope used rather severe language. After having expressed his
disappointment about the way they had behaved upon their
arrival in Constantinople—they had not contacted Photius—
the Pope said he would give them a second chance, but he added a

1. CASPAR, art. cit. 92f.

2. Ibid. 108, 126 where many examples are given.
3. Ibid. 116f; cf. App. 290 RV, “satisfaciendo... postulantem’’.
4. DVORNIK 179ff. In his book Les légendes de Constantin et de Mé-
thode, vues de Byzance, Prague 1933, 323-329 Dvornik had defended the
so-called double interpolation, one at the time of the preparation of the
Photian synod, and another by an anti-unionist of the 14th century.
 Ag
new member to the delegation in the person of Cardinal Peter.
“Thus do everything that is necessary for the peace and the unity
of the Church of God, in accordance with our apostolic authority
and with the tenor of our commonitorium...and do this with
insight and intelligence, and act so that by a more faithful loyalty
you may deserve our favour which you have spoiled by your former
disobedience” +. This letter is important— Dvornik says—be-
cause it encouraged the legates in their negotiations before the
Synod. They gave up their isolation and with Peter they con-
tacted Photius to discuss the procedure of the coming synod.
They now acted more independently and dared to make con-
cessions. Upon reading the instructions and the letters, they
realized that the Pope still did not fully understand the situation
in the Church of Constantinople. It would be impossible to read
these letters and the commonitorium in their present version to the
Fathers of the synod, because they were incompatible with the
existing situation. No other way was left for the legates but to act
according to their own judgement. Was this not what Pope John
had suggested in the letter brought by Cardinal Peter? Besides,
if they did not do this they would endanger the reconciliation of both
churches, which was their mission. This conviction grew while they
were preparing the synod and holding their consultations with
Photius 2. The situation had become more and more clear to
them. Photius was not so wrong as was believed in Rome. Pope
John, just like his predecessor, had been greatly misled. They
understood that Photius was not a usurper, but canonically elected,
that his deposition in 869 had been a mistake, due to lack of com-
munication, and that most of the patriarchate had remained faith-
ful to him. Communications being so bad, they did not write again
to Rome but took the only choice left to them: with the help of
Photius and his chancery they adapted the letters and the com-
monitorium, according to their new understanding of the facts.
They eliminated everything which threw a false light on the case.
They were certain that Pope John would approve, because they
knew facts which he did not ?. Since they came from Rome,

4. MGH Ep. VII 189 - 190.’

2. The acts of the Photian synod give a hint of this, cf. MANsI XVII 460
D; see also IVANTSOV - PLATONOY, art. cit. n. 283, 52; DVORNIK LO8ff.
3. DVORNIK, Byzance et la primauté romaine, 100; IVANTSOV - PLATO-
48

they tried to uphold as much as possible the Apostolic authority

of this Church. This adaption of the letters is also the reason why
the letter to the Ignatians was not read at all at the synod. This
group was so small that they could be disregarded. On the other
hand, the matters mentioned in this letter were taken care of in
the other letters 1.
Not everyone accepts Dvornik’s explanation of the changes
in the papal letters, and of the problem of the double version ?.
His argument that such changes were customary in Byzantium is at-
tacked by Stephanou. The only explicit example before 879 which
Dvornik can give is the Council of 787 °. However, even if no more
examples can be found, Dvornik’s general thesis justifying the
changes in this case of 879 does not seem to be weakened. Other
solutions have been attempted with more or less success. For in-
stance, two versions would already have been prepared in Rome
which the legates could use according to the circumstances *.
As we shall see later the primacy of the Roman See receives

NOY, art. cit. n. 288, 52f. From the letter of Pope John to the Emperors (App.
64ff CV) it is clear that Photius (and the Patriarchal Chancellery) collaborat-
ed with the legates in the alleration of the letters. The passage here is the
same as a passage from Photius’ homily at the end of the synod of 867, cf.
MANGO, The homilies of Photius, 312.
1. This letter probably was to be read after the apology of Photius, cf.
V. GRUMEL, “‘Les lettres de Jean VIII pour le rétablissement de Photius” in
EO 39(1940) 138f; STIERNON, op. cit. 182.
2. Cf. K. Bonis, “Korreferat zu F. Dvornik” in Berichte zum XT.
Internationalen Byzantinisten Kongress, Miinchen 1958 III 2, 24; see also
K. MnONH, Koioeis éxé tivwy onpetor tig moditixijg tod} Detiov, ’APFva. 1959,
17. Not all Bonis’s arguments weaken the position of Dvornik, as is clear
from the answer of Dvornik, F. DvorNiK, ‘Das neue Bild...’, 43; also Dvor-
NIK 186, 198f. STIERNON, op. cit. 189 speaks about the consent of the le-
gates in the alteration of the Papal letters, but contradicts his statement
in this respect onp. 186.
3. P. STEPHANOU, “Korreferat zu F. Dvornik” in Berichte zum XI.
Internationalen Byzantinisten Kongress, Miinchen 1958, III 2, 20 and the an-
swer of Dvornik, DvorNik, ‘Das neue Bild...’, 43. Also the letters of 861
had been changed, cf. MANSI XVI 68 E - 72 E.
4. GRUMEL, “Les lettres de Jean VIII. . .”’, 142f; IVANTSOV - PLATONOV,
art. cit. n. 283, 52. Others consider only the version of the Register the authen-
tic text, and place the other version as a falsification in the 13th century, cf.
G. HOFMANN, “Lo stato presente della questione circa la riconciliazione di
Fozio con la Chiesa Romana”, in La Civilta Cattolica 99 (1948) IIL 54 ff.
 49

quite a strong emphasis in the versions read at the Synod. The

changes of the papal letters were an expression of respect for
Rome. They were re-formulated in the way Rome would have
formulated them, if it had known the situation better. The texts
were adapted to Byzantine ears, but many typical Roman
formulations were left untouched.
It is not our purpose to solve this problem completely. More-
over, the importance of this question should not be exaggerat-
ed*. Even if the legates were transgressing their power, the
results of the synod were accepted by Pope John VIII. We are
mainly interested in the two mentalities and the theological dif-
ferences which may appear in this double version of the letters.

3. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE ACTS OF THE PHOTIAN SYNOD

That the version of the papal letters according to the Greek

Acts is the recension which was prepared in the consultation be-
tween Photius and the Roman legates before the synod, rest on
the assumption that the Acts as we have them are authentic.
To investigate this assumption and to be sure of having a
sufficient basis for our theological investigation, is the purpose of
this paragraph.
Many different manuscripts
Most of the manuscripts existing now are of the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries. A few belong to the fourteenth century and one
can be traced back to the thirteenth 2. Most of them were copied
out of polemical anti-Latin interest. Considering the libraries where
manuscripts have been found, it would appear that the Acts were
spread all over the Christian world?. This large number of copies
shows a great many variations and differences. Many examples are
to be found in Cardinal Hergenroether’s work which treats this
problem extensively *. These differences do not substantially
affect the ideas and the character of the synod >. Few are of

1. IVANTSOY - PLATONOY, art. cit. n. 283, 53f.

2. HERGENROETHER, op. cit. IT 530.
3. IVANTSOV - PLATONOV, art. cit. n. 283, 6f, 48; HERGENROETHER, op.
City lire29 radiate ‘
4, Ibid. 528 - 554.
5. Ibid. 530; IVANTSOV - PLATONOY, art. cit. n. 281, 40f; n. 283, 56,
DAlOe
50

theological importance, such as for instance the mentioning of the

name of Photius before or after the name of the Roman legates '.
Other variations deal with questions such as more exact dates or
circumstances ?.
Only quite late—in the eighteenth century—the Acts of this
synod were published in the various collections of conciliar Acts,
which were compiled. Labbe? mentions only the canons. Bever-
idge+ gives a few fragments. In his Annals, Baronius? has
a few short Latin extracts, made according to two old Latin
copies with the full procés verbaux of the synod. But in 1705
Metropolitan Anthimus published the work of the late Patriarch
Dositheus of Jerusalem, Téyog Xae%o%, which contains also
the Acts of this synod. Ten years later Hardouin published, at
the request of Pope Clement XI, the Acts according to a Vatican
manuscript 7. A critical edition comparing the various redactions
has still not materialized. These differences in the manuscripts
—some give seven, others five or only four sessions—have made
scholars very cautious about their authenticity. It is of course
no strange phenomenon that many manuscripts of a particular
period have been lost. In his Bibliotheca § Photius analysed many
literary and scientific works which do not exist any more. Some
of them are known only through the reviews of Photius ®. On the
other hand, this fact should make one very careful in judging the
Synod of 879. Does one really know what happened there?
Authenticity of the Acts and acceptance of the Synod
There is no doubt that the reading of the acts as we have

Aelbid. 0283.50.
2. JuGIE, Le Schisme byzantin, 129; M. JuGIE, “Les actes du Synode
photien de Ste Sophie’, in HO 37(1938) 98.
3. Ph. LABBE - G. COssART, Sacrosancta Concilia ad Regiam Editionem
Hexacta, Paris 1672, XI.
4, G. BEVEREGIUS (W. BEVERIDGE), Synodikon sive Pandectae canonum
SS. Apostolorum et Conciliorum, Oxford 1672, II II 273 - 305.
5. BARONIUS, Annales ecclesiastici, cum critica historico - chronologica
P. Antoni Pagii, Lucae 1738 - 1739, ad annum 879.
6. late. AOZI@EOE, Téuog yaodc, é&v & negiéyovta ai éntotodAai Patiov
..., Phuyex 1705, 33 - 102; see also TENNAAIOY, art. cit. 40.
7. MANSI XVII 373 - 524 according to Vat. Graec. 115.
8. PG 103 - 104.
9. F. DVORNIK, “Patriarch Photius, Scholar and Statesman” in Clas-
sical Folia 13(1959) 8ff.
 5a

them now can cause surprise and suspicion. What kind of synod
was this? Was it a mise en scéne to glorify and exalt Photius? It
seems that even the primacy of Rome had something to contribute
to this glorification of Photius. Then, the synod declared an
Ecumenical Council (869) null and void. The letters sent by the
Pope of Rome were altered and changed. What kind of synod was
this? These are things which might surprise, and cause doubt
about the authenticity of the acts of such a synod. However, it
would be an a priori judgement to assert that these Acts were
unauthentic, on the ground that we cannot explain the facts. Of
this a priori judgement many scholars, Catholic and Protestant,
have been guilty in the past. Their arguments, however, do not
justify this position’. Such a mentality had been promoted by
the warning of a copyist of the fourteenth century, at the beginning
of the sixth session of the Photian Synod. The reader is exhorted
not to believe its content ‘because these sixth and seventh
sessions never happened but were invented by Photius” ?.
Perhaps this suspicious and prejudicial attitude caused some
documents such as the commonitorium to disappear ?, in order
to avoid publication and to let the synod be forgotten. The
fact that Pope John accepted the decisions of the synod, has par-
ticularly disturbed many historians. How could he accept this
decision which so obviously contradicted his instructions? To
explain this incredible fact it was suggested that Pope John did
not see the original acts, but only an adapted Latin version *.
This hypothesis is not impossible; however, the question of the
acceptance of the synod by Pope John must be quite distinct
from the question of the authenticity of the acts. Even if one
accepts the supposition that Pope John saw another version,
then the authenticity of the Greek Acts as we have them today
does not have to be denied.

4. The authenticity of the signatures was attacked; the high number

of participants seemed suspicious. See on this HERGENROETHER, op. cit. I
457 - 461; IVANTSOV - PLATONOV, art. cit. n. 281, 51; n. 283, 6, Tl, Ba.
2. MANSI XVII 512 note.
3. IVANTSOV - PLATONOY, art. cit. n. 283, 6. It is also possible that no
registration had been made of this commonitorium.
4. JuGie, “Les actes du synode photien...”, 90f, 93, 97ff; JuGIE, Le
Schisme byzantin, 128ff; W. DE VRIES, Orthodoxie und Katholizismus, Ge-
gensatz oder Ergdnzung?, Freiburg i Br. 1965, 53.
 Opposition and answer
What has been said until now explains sufficiently the oppo-
sition to the authenticity of the Acts by Baronius, Allatius and
others 1. Even today their followers still object to the arguments
of those who favour the authenticity. Vitalien Laurent refuses to
accept the Acts until all Latin and Greek literature has been
studied. Until that day everything is only an “acrobatie intel-
lectuelle’ ®. In particular he bases his opposition upon the
writings of Beccus and Metochites. Speaking about this synod,
both have suggested that Photius anathematized his anti- Roman
writings 3. Metochites even said that he burned them*. Besides
the fact that Beccus certainly would have told the story of the
burning, if this had happened, one can understand their com-
ments metaphorically without any difficulty. By his action and
his conduct at the synod, Photius did in fact the opposite of
what he had written before ®. Father Jugie, and others with him,
see in these writings of Beccus and Metochites rather a proof of
the authenticity the Acts. They show that the Acts were known
and used in their time *®. However Laurent stands by his judge-
ment and is not convinced. For him the Acts are false ’.
Not only can the works of Beccus and Metochites be quoted
as evidence for the authenticity of the Acts as we have them.
There are the Latin extracts in the collection of Cardinal Deusde-
dit (2? - 1097/1100) §, and Ivo of Chartres (1040-1116) % One

4. Cf. CH. J. HEFELE - H. LECLERCQ, Histoire des Conciles, Paris, 1911ff,

IV 586.
2. V. LAURENT, “‘Les Actes du Synode photien et Georges le Métochite”
in EO 37(1938) 101. See also V. LAURENT, “Le cas de Photius dans l’apolo-
gétique du patriarche Jean XI Beccos (1274 - 1282) au lendemain du deuxiéme
Concile de Lyon’, in HO 29(1930) 396 - 407.
3. PG 141, 940.
4, GEORGIUS METOCHITES Historiae Dogmaticae liber I et II, ed. A.
MAI, Nova Patrum bibliotheca, VIII, 2, 12.
5. JUGIE, “Les actes du synode photien...’, 95; JuGIE, Le Schisme
byzantin, 127; DVORNIK 407ff.
6. JuGIE, “Les actes du synode photien ...”, 95; IVANTSOV - PLATONOV,
art wClLts M28 3.0e8e
7. LAURENT, “Les Actes. ..’’, 105f.
8. Cardinal Deusdedit has a summary of the acts after manuscript Vat.
Lat. 3833, cf. W. VON GLANVELL, Die Kanonensammlung des Kardinals
Deusdedit, Paderborn 1905, 616.
9. PL 161, 56ff which is a part of the letter of Pope John to the Emper-
 53
cannot find any evidence in the works of the canonists of the
eleventh and following centuries that Pope John VIII did not
know the Acts of the Synod of 879-880 as we have them 1.
Michael of Anchialos in the twelfth century, Nicetas of Maronea,
Job Jasites in the thirteenth century, Gregory Mammas in the
fifteenth century and others are sufficient proof of the fact that
in their time the Acts.as we have them were known 2. A scholar
like Cardinal Hergenroether was, therefore, convinced of the basic
authenticity of the Acts, not only the first five sessions but also
the other two °.

The authenticity of the Acts of the sixth and seventh session

The sixth and seventh sessions of the synod have been
particular subjects of suspicion. Besides the admonitio ad lecto-
rem which we mentioned already, the question of the filioque
also played a réle. At the sixth session all additions to the Creed
had been forbidden. That this had been done with the agree-
ment of the Roman legates seemed impossible. These sessions
therefore could not have happened. An argument for this was
seen in the fact that in some extracts of the Acts, sessions six and
seven were missing. But this happened, probably, because these ses-
sions did not offer anything new in the case of Photius, which had
been the occasion for the selection of the extracts. The strange
circumstances of the sessions, the small number of bishops, the
meeting at the Emperor’s palace, receive a-satisfactory explana-
tion if—as Dvornik points out—one takes into consideration the
period of court mourning because of the death of Prince Constan-

ors according to the Constantinopolitan version, cf. App. 121ff CV, 546ff
CV; 553ff CV. See also DvorNik 302ff.
4. Cf. DvORNIK 307, 398ff. See also TENNAAIOY art. cit. 63ff; PG 120,
717; V. GRUMEL, “Le ‘Filioque’ au concile photien de 879 - 880 et le témoi-
enage de Michel d’Anchialos” in LO 29(1930) 257ff tries to prove the oppo-
site.
2. See also P. P. JOANNOU, Fonti, Pontificia Commuissione per la re-
dazione del codice di diritto canonico orientale, Fascicolo IX, 1/2, Les canons
des Synodes particuliers, Roma 1962, 480; HEFELE - LECLERCQ, op. cit. IV
585; BECK, “Vom _ kirchlichen Frihmittelalter...” in Handbuch der Kir-
chengeschichte (Hrsg. von H. JEpIN) III 1, 210; JuGie, “Les actes du synode
photien...”, 98f; DVORNIK 398, 400, 411, 421.
3. HERGENROFTHER, op. cit. II 532, 537.
54

tine, the son of the Emperor. On the other hand a session with
the Emperor present, and with a formal definition of Orthodoxy
(the so called Horos) was very important to give as much external
authority as possible to this synod 1. After all, Photius owed his
rehabilitation and the restoration of the peace with Rome to this
synod, and it should thus be as ‘ecumenical’ as possible.
We do not find any-signature under the sixth and seventh
session. This is not surprising. Photius himself declared ? that
they had been signed. This difficulty can be solved if one supposes
that only one copy had been signed. According to Photius’ own
words the original copy had been ‘deposited in the library of the Saint
Sophia *. Here it remained until the fifteenth century *. We
also know that the number of signatures on the various manu-
scripts of the Council of Florence is very different °.
What of the letter of Pope John VIII “‘odx &yvoeiv’ which
was published after the Acts?® In this letter the Pope said that
the Creed used in Rome did not contain the addition of the filio-
que. He rejected this addition fervently and compared those who
used it to Judas. He asked Photius to be patient. It was better
to convince than to force. He was certain that Photius would
cooperate with him to supress this addition. It is possible, but
unlikely that Pope John had written a letter on this subject after
the Synod of 879-880. Dvornik and others prove that this cannot
have been done in this form. Dvornik places this version of the
letter in the fourteenth century ’.

1. On the issue of the mourning see page 57f.See also JuGiE, Le Schis-
me byzantin, 125f; JUGiE, “Les actes du synode photien ...’, 93; STIERNON,
op. cit. 192 accepts the conclusion of Dvornik but weakens the argument of
Dvyornik on the importance of the Horos as proof for the authenticity of the
last two sessions. Cf. DVORNIK 194ff.
2. PG 102, 381; IVANTSOV - PLATONOY, art. cit. n. 283, 46.
3. PG 102, 820; IVANTSOV - PLATONOV, art. cit. n. 283, 48.
4. Ibid.; around 1420 a copy of the acts with the signatures of the
Papal legates existed in Constantinople, cf. Myre. KAAAINIKOY, «‘O éy aytors
aoyxtertoxoros Kwvotavtwoundrems Datos» in "OeOodokia 1(1926) 400.
5. J. GILL, The Council of Florence, Cambridge 1961, 297f.
6. MANSI XVII 524.
7. HOFMANN, “Lo stato presente della questione...’, 53; DVORNIK
197f. An opposite opinion, IVANTSOV - PLATONOY, art. cit. n. 283, 54; Photius
never mentioned this letter. I. ROMANIDES, «Ot &ytot Kiordrog xat Me068:0¢
"EdAnves aviirpdomnor Aativay eig Lrwiove evavt, Dodyxav» in Tenyédous 6
 Conclusion
Internal criticism of the text of the Acts does not reveal
anything which contradicts the character of Photius as we know
him from his writings. Nor is there any anachronism or improb-
ability 1. The picture which the Acts give of this synod is so
lively that it seems unlikely that it was not written by an eye-
witness. The Acts give the picture of a working meeting with Pho-
tius as chairman. For example when Cosmas, the legate of Patriarch
Michael of Alexandria, came in, he went to Photius and handed him
the letters which he had brought with him. Photius took one of the
letters, and gave it to the deacon and chartophylax Photinus to
read it to the Fathers 2. At another point the greeting of the
legate from Antioch is described with much colour ?. It was no-
ticed that the Roman legates sang a ‘Latin’ hymn at the begin-
ning of the second session. In the fifth session a delegation was sent
to Metrophanes to ask him to join Photius and to give up his
opposition. When the bishops came back with the answer of Metro-
phanes, the Acts noted that they read this answer to the Fathers.
An eye-witness clearly saw that this answer. was on _ paper ?.
Many more examples could be given, which suggest that the Acts
were written by one of the people present.
Our conclusion is therefore that we have to take the Acts
of this synod seriously although we cannot be absolutely certain
until we have a critical edition. We are aware of the insufficiency
of our research in this matter in which we based ourselves on the
findings of authorities on the subject, but these findings offer us a
sufficiently solid basis for further study. When we say authenticity
we mean a basic authenticity. The text shows various instances
of contradiction and bad compilation®, and it is possible and

Tadapdc 54(1971) 276 accepts the authenticity of the letter without argu-
ment.
. 4. Cf. JuGiE, Le Schisme byzantin, 130; IVANTSOV
- PLATONOV, art.
Cliten. GAR oot.
2. MANSI XVII 428 BC.
3. Ibid. 476 AB.
4. Ibid. 496 DE, 500 DE.,
5. E.g. see p. 57 note 2 and p. 59 note 4. The analysis of the commoni-
torium (see p. 112ff) also shows some examples. Cf. also HERGENROETHER,
op. cit. IL 533 for more examples.
56

probable that some parts have been retouched and made more
elegant by Photius or his friends ’.
Even if we cannot establish absolute historical authentic-
ity, we think we are justified in proceeding with our analysis
because of the acceptance of this synod by the Orthodox Church.
This synod is found in practically all Orthodox canonical collec-
tions 2. The Orthodox Church considers this synod as a part of
the authentic expression of its faith. Although no official state-
ment has been made on this matter, we can consider this synod an
authentic source, one of the symbolic monuments of the Orthodox
Church *. There is no doubt that the Orthodox Church bases
it judgement about this synod on the Acts as we have them *.
We therefore conclude that the Acts of the Photian Synod of 879-
880 deserve to be the basis of a theological analysis.

1. Such as e.g. the discourses of the Roman legates.

2. Cf. NEO®YTOY, LvAdoy? advtwy tay isody xai Osioy xavdverr, ‘Evetia
1787; NEO®YTOY, Kavovimoy itot ot Oeiot xavdvec ... , Kevotavtivourdret 1841;
AYrAmloyY, I[nddhov, ijtow Gravtec ot isgo! xai Osior xavdvec, “AOFvx. 1800; To
WSrov, Aewpig 1800; I. A. PAAAH-M., TIOTAH, LWrtaypa toy Oeiwv xai ieodyv
xavover, *AOFva, 1852 - 1859; A. £. AAIBIZATOY, Oi iegol xavdvec xal of éxxdn-
ctacotixol vouot, ADAvat 1949. Pravyla sepyatykh Apostol, Moskva 1901; Korm-
chaya Kniga, Moskva 1940; See also F. A. BIENER, De collectionibus canonum
Ecclesiae Graecae schediasma litterarium, Berlin 1827; T. MitTrRovits, Nomo-
kanon der Slavischen Morgenlaindischen Kirche, Wien 1898: I. B. Card.
PITRA, Juris ecclesiastici Graecorum, Historia et monumenta, I]. Roma 1868.
See also the manuscript described in DvoRNIK 455. A few collections do not
have the synod of 879 - 880, cf. HERGENROETHER, op. cit. II 534 ad 40.
3. LN. KAPMIPH, Ta doywatixa xai ovuBohixa wrnueia tis >Oob0ddéou
xaBohinns °ExxAnoiac, tonoc¢ I, ’AOFvor 1960, 2611f.
4. Cf. the various introductions and commentaries given in these col-
lections. They are not, or are only very mildly, anti-Roman.
 CHAP TER TTI

THE SYNOD OF UNION OF 879 - 880

1. HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE SESSIONS OF THE SYNOD

After the preliminary deliberations in which the situation

had been clarified for the legates, and the texts had been adapted,
the council could convene.
At the beginning of November 879, the first session took place
of what is called the “Holy Synod... under Photius, Most Holy
and Ecumenical Patriarch, for the Union of the Holy and Apostolic
Churchof God’ 1. There were 383 bishops present, a clear manifes-
tation of the strength of the followers of Photius, especially if we
compare this number with that of the synod ten years earlier which
started with only thirteen bishops ?. We can ask why this council
gathered under the presidency of Photius, and why the Emperor
did not preside either personally or through one of his representa-
tives as was normally the case?. The explanation of Dvornik
is quite satisfactory. Shortly before, the Emperor had lost his
eldest son who was very dear to him. The court being in mourning,
it was impossible for the Emperor to appear at any public event.
Photius, however, because of his background as Imperial Chancel-

1. MANSI XVII 373; Téwos yxoxs, 33, simply says: ITlouxtixe tig ovy-
xpotnBetons gv Kwvotavtwourdae. ovvedov éxi to} Dwriov, ote Oavovtog tod “Tyva-
tiov émaviAGev ets TO TatTELapystov.
2. For the problems connected with the number of bishops present, and
the representation of the dioceses,—which is beyond the purpose of this study—
see HERGENROETHER, op. cit. Il 449ff. Around 15 bishops who were present
at the council of 869 were also at the Photian synod. 54 dioceses were not
represented, and of 12 dioceses the name is not known. At the first session
Cardinal Peter suggested that some were not present (MANsI XVII 392 (C).
For this reason he had not brought with him the letters which he was supposed
to read at the first session (ef. App. 1470ff). Therefore the list of participants
at the beginning of the acts might in fact have been the list of those who
signed the acts, as is also suggested in MANSI XVII 512 B.
3. DVORNIK 189; F. DvorNIK, “Emperors, Popes and General Coun-
cils’ in Dumbarton Oaks Paper 6{1951).
58

lor, seemed the right person to replace him. He thus acted practi-
cally as the representative of the Emperor x
The first session was dedicated to the exchange of greetings
and friendship between the papal legates and the Byzantine bish-
ops. They asked about the health of the Pope, and the legates
in their turn noted that Photius was looking well. Nevertheless
the legates of Rome had come with a clear purpose, to restore
order in the divided Church of Constantinople. Their coming was
therefore to be compared with a visit of St. Peter himself, a sort
of canonical visitation 2. At a given moment they said: “As a
father who loves his children, and as a shepherd his sheep, so the
holy Pope in his love does not stop exhorting you, and visiting you
and guiding you by his letters and legates” *. In the name of the
Pope they urged their Byzantine colleagues to restore peace and unity
so that there would be once again one flock and one shepherd *.
Such remarks apparently did not please the Byzantine bishops.
There is the impression of a loaded atmosphere. Did the legates
not go too far? Did they really understand the situation in Con-
stantinople where there was unity already. “There is already
one flock and one shepherd, Photius, our Most Holy Master and
Ecumenical Patriarch” ®. With such words the remarks of the
legates were answered. The synod had not been needed to bring
about this unity, but merely added the advantage that Rome too
was now included to celebrate the achieved unity. The coming
of the Roman legates, just as that of the legates from the Patriar-
chates of the near East, was considered as the expression of their
participation in the unity and harmony which had already been
reached in Constantinople. And now that the entire Church was
in harmony again, it was possible with a common endeavour, to

1. DvoRNIK 189f; DvoRNIK, “The Patriarch Photius in the light of re-

cent research’, 38. We know that the death of Constantine had strong reper-
cussions on the life and politics of the Emperor Basil, cf. BREHIER, Vie et mort
de Byzance, Paris 1969, 118. It is not excluded that the presidency of Photius
at this synod is a symptom of the growing influence of the function of the
patriarch. In 787 Patriarch Tarasius had also presided over the synod. MANSI
XII 992ff.
2. MANsI XVII 380 C,
3. Ibid. 384 E.
4. Ibid. 384 A.
5. Ibidem.
 59

make a permanent end to all schisms, and to resolve finally the

question of the Iconoclastic troubles which still disturbed the
people +. During the first session, one of the speakers, Zacharias,
Metropolitan of Chalcedon, referred in clear terms to the real
reason for the difficulties which had-arisen between the Churches
of Constantinople and of Rome. The question had not been the
restoration of Photius, which had been a faitaccompli for a long
time previously. This synod came together because of the Church
of Rome, or more correctly, because of its good name and honour ?.
She had been the victim of grossly inadequate and one-sided in-
formation from the Ignatian faction, and so her good name had been
damaged. This was going to be restored at the synod. Rome had
now understood the real state of affairs, and the synod could
become a proclamation of the harmony and- unity that had been
achieved. For the Roman legates this meant something new. The
further development of the synod shows that they had some pro-
blem with this new understanding. From time to time they kept
harping upon their original conviction that they had come to
restore unity. Nevertheless, from a little and in itself unimportant
incident during this session it becomes clear that they started to
grasp the real situation. Towards the end of the session they pre-
sented Photius in the name of the Pope with some gifts: ponti-
fical vestments, an omophorion (pallium!), an alb, a chasuble
and sandals 3. It might have been their original plan to give these
presents only after the restoration of Photius as Patriarch, but if
Photius was rightly patriarch, it made no sense to postpone this
gesture.
On Tuesday, November 17th 879, the second session started *.

1. Ibid. 388 D.
2 Mord. 380) C:
8. Ibid. 389 C.
4. The second session started on Tuesday November 17th (MANsI XVII
393 C), although Photius had suggested Monday for the next meeting (MANSI
XVII 392 A). Another irregularity is that MANsI XVII 392 B seems to suggest
that the Roman legates had just arrived. The fatigue of the legates is given
as the reason for adjourning the meeting. Did they perhaps adapt the
papal letters between the first and second sessions? Was this perhaps the
reason why the Roman legates had not brought the letters with them at
the first session (see p. 57 n. 2)? Were they perhaps not ready with their adap-
tation on the Monday, and so they postponed the meeting one day?
60

In the middle of the aula—a side gallery of the St. Sophia Church—
the book of the Gospels was exposed on a stand, to show that
the Word of God was the real president of the synod. The meeting
was opened with a short liturgical service in which the Roman
legates also took part. As the secretary noted with interest, they
sang something in Latin’. Practically the whole session was
taken up with the public-reading of the various letters which the
legates of Rome and those of the Oriental Patriarchates had
brought with them. The letter of Pope John VII to the Emperors
was read by the Imperial Interpreter which emphasized its impor-
tance 2. As has been said, some changes had been made in these
letters to adapt them to the situation in Constantinople. After
the letter to the Emperors. there followed the reading of the papal
letter to Photius. Because these letters clearly offered an occa-
sion, Photius was invited by the Roman legates to explain the
circumstances of his restoration to the Patriarchal throne. Above
all, the legates wanted to know if any pressure had been used from
the side of the Emperor. This Rome could not accept or approve.
Photius stressed that the initiative on his second patriarchate had
not come from himself, although some of his friends had induced
him to resume office. Emphatically he described his reconciliation
with Ignatius shortly before the latter’s death. When Ignatius
had died, it had been the Emperor and the bishops who had beg-
ged him to accept the See again. Even the Patriarchs of the Orien-
tal Sees had in their synods asked for his return. He had become
Patriarch again at the common desire of all. This was not pressure.
When Photius had finished his report, the Fathers of the synod
made the remark: “So it happened” %. After this the letters
brought by the legates of the Patriarchates of Alexandria, An-
tioch and Jerusalem were read. They. were present, because it

1. MANsI XVII 393 D. This suggests that the Roman legates were used
to speaking Greek, without an interpreter. HERGENROETHER, op. cit II 396 de-
nied that the legates knew Greek; perhaps their Greek was not perfect, but at
the synod they seemed to speak it. It is even mentioned as a curiosity that
they sang in Latin.
2. MANsI XVIT 396 - 408. The mention of an interpreter at this moment
suggests that the legates otherwise spoke without one. This letter was read
by the official imperial interpreter which shows that the synod had the full
agreement of the Emperor.
3. MANS! XVII 421 E.
 61

was an Ecumenical Council, a synod of the whole Empire}.

These patriarchates had adhered greatly under the attacks and
domination of the Saracens, so that they were in severe straits.
This is shown clearly in these letters, where they unanimously
expressed their support for Photiusand , then described exten-
sively the difficulties they were going through under Moslem
domination. Their words certainly had a political colour, as they
hoped to get financial support from the imperial Chonet of Con-
stantinople®. This unfortunate situation was used by Constan-
tinople to expand its influence-in the Oriental Patriarchates. A
letter of the Metropolitan of Amidae and Samosata in Armenia
was read. It served as a guarantee for the authenticity of the
Patriarchal letters: he had seen them and agreed.

Two days later, on Thursday, November 19th, the synod met

again for its third session. They started with the reading of the
third letter which Cardinal Peter had brought, ‘‘to the reverend
and most holy bishops, our brothers and fellow-ministers of the
Church of Constantinople, and to all who belong to her, and to
the other major Churches, of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria,
and their archbishops” *. In the discussion which followed this
reading, the bishops voiced some objections concerning the pro-
motion of laymen to the episcopacy which the Pope had rejected.
They considered it an illegal attempt to meddle in the local matters
of the Church of Constantinople. The next item on the agenda
was the letter of Patriarch Theodosius of Jerusalem. In this letter
—as in the other letters of the Eastern patriarchates—the presence
of the Oriental legates at the Synod of 869 was referred to. These
legates had not really represented the patriarchates, the letter
claimed, but were partisans of the Moslem. They had been present
only to procure the liberation of their relatives who were held in
captivity by the Emperor, which was why they had collaborated
in the condemnation of Photius in 869 4. This serious accusation
induced Cardinal Peter to cross-examine the Oriental legates at
this synod to avoid a repetition of 869. Paul and Eugenius who

. Seeae VI.
. MANsI XVII 441 Cff.
|
—
On. Ibid. 449 E.
4. Ibid. 464 D
62
with
had been longer in Constantinople and had got acquainted
one of the Oriental legates, the monk Andreas, interrupted their
confrere Peter, and defended Andreas *. This action of the Roman
legates reminded Photius of the ordeal and suffering which his
friends and colleagues had undergone in 869, and he asked them
not to start the process once again, but to forget the past. Then
Elias, one of the Oriental legates, gave his credentials: he proved
he had never even met Photius before. The Roman legates were
apparently impressed by the overwhelming support which Pho-
tius received from all sides. During this third session they worded
their slowly growing conviction in these words: “God knows,
Constantinople has not known a man like Photius, for years” ?.
From their respect for Photius they began to play more openly,
and to read during the session the instructions which Pope
John had given them personally, the commonitorium *.

It took more than a month before the Council had its fourth
session, which was held on Thursday, December 24th. Probably
because the Church of St. Sophia was being prepared and deco-
rated for the Christmas celebration, this session took place in the
Great Secretariat 4. A new legate had arrived, Basil the Metro-
politan of Martyropolis. He came as representative of Antioch
and carried letters from the new Patriarch of Jerusalem, Elias.
Therefore the session began with an investigation of his creden-
tials. The letters which he had brought with him were read to
the Fathers, again a joyful declaration of loyalty towards Pho-
tius, but a large part was dedicated to the difficult situation of
the Christians under the rule of the Saracens®. After this the
legate of the Oriental Patriarchates, Elias of Jerusalem, spoke about
the greatness of Photius which was even recognized by the Sara-
cens, who had been in correspondence with him ®. Two patri-
cians previously had refused to recognize Photius. Their case was
now presented to the synod. Because they had regretted their

. Ibid. 464 E.
Ibid. 468 A.
Ibid. 468 - 472.
Ibid. 476 A.
. Ibid. 477 Bff.
= . Ibid.
oN
Co
ES
Ov
oo 484 D.
 63
attitude, they were admitted to penance 1. Most of the time of
the session was spent on the discussion of the commonitorium
which had been read at the end of the previous session. In the
discussion only a few important questions of the document were
selected. The Bulgarian question, mentioned in chapter IX, was
dismissed as belonging to the competence of the Emperor. This
would be solved in a new administrative division of the Roman
Empire, after the completion of the conquest of the other coun-
tries. The demand that no laymen should be promoted immediately
to the episcopacy, as chapter VIII said, referring to the case of Pho-
tius, was strongly criticized. Many examples of the past were cited.
If that was the custom of the Roman Church, then that was
good, but such a tradition should not bind the other Churches.
Great Joy was expressed concerning chapter. X which dealt with
the suppression of. the anti-Photian Council of 869. The session
ended with the invitation of Cardinal Peter to express the achieved
harmony by joining Photius in the Eucharistic celebration of
Christmas 2.

On Monday, January 26th 880, the Fathers met again for the
fifth time to deal with some practical questions. Photius proposed
to eliminate any doubt about the ecumenical character of the second
Council of Nicea (787) and to add it officially to the list of the
other ecumenical councils as number seven. After the agreement of
the Roman legates had been obtained, the proposition was accepted.
With this, the rejection of the Synod of 869 was underlined once more.
The decision made in 869 on the ecumenicity of the Council of 787
was no longer valid and therefore had to be renewed. Finally this
session promulgated a few canons. They were some practical direc-
tives suggested by the concrete circumstances. Some opponents
of Photius had appealed to the Pope and sought support in their
opposition against Photius. One of their leaders was the Metro-
politan of Smyrna, Metrophanes. The synod sent a delegation to
him —he was not present at the synod—to urge him to unite him-
self to the Church and to Photius. He refused and pretended to
be sick. The Roman legates did not accept this excuse: “He could
easily have given the answer; I unite myself to the Church accord-

1. Ibid. 485 C; cf. DVORNIK 191.

2. MANSI XVII 492 EH.
64

ing to the mandates of the most holy Pope John’ 1. Therefore

he was declared excommunicated by the Church of Rome. This
brought a motion to the floor which was voted upon as the first
canon: Anyone penalized by the Pope of Rome should not be
accepted by the Patriarch of Constantinople, and vice versa ?.
Metrophanes was approached again and after his second refusal
excommunicated by the synod according to this canon. A second
canon forbade bishops who abdicated and became monks from
resuming their former dignity. This canon found its motivation
in the desire of the Fathers to avoid another case of confusion, such
as the one caused by Ignatius who after his abdication had returned
to the patriarchate *. The third canon condemned any layman
who molested bishops or imprisoned them. This decision also reflect-
ed the situation of the recent troubles when many bishops—in-
cluding Photius himself—had been arrested or sent into exile 4.
It is not out of the question that this canon was directed against
the Emperor as well. After completing the work to be done, the
bishops—with the exception of Photius who acted as imperial
chairman—on the invitation of the Roman legates placed their
signatures under the decisions, some with a personal comment a

For the legal acceptance of the Council in the Empire, the

decisions needed the signature and approval of the Emperor. In
view of this a special meeting (the sixth session) was arranged in the
imperial palace, on Thursday, March 3rd, with only a small repre-
sentative group of the Fathers present (twenty two bishops) °.
Ina short speech the Emperor indicated that by his absence the
Fathers had enjoyed greater freedom than would have been the
case if he had been there 7. He proposed to seal the achieved
unity by the solemn proclamation of their faith, not by draw-
ing up a new formula, but with the words of the Nicene Creed.

. Ibid. 497 A.
. Ibid. 497 D; see App. 1657ff.
. MANS! XVII 504 AB; also DVORNIK 192.
. MANSI XVII 504 C.
-. Ibid. 508 ff.
wn
nr

6. Ibid. 542C. Nicephorus of Caria does not appear in the list of the
participants at the beginning of the synod, nor does Paul of Thessaloniki. This
last might have been the successor of Theodosius of Thessaloniki.
7. Mansi XVII 513 BCD.
 65

This was done. They condemned everybody who dared to change

this symbol of faith by additions, alterations or subtractions 1.
It is quite clear that they were hinting at the question of the
fulioque. After this the Emperor and his sons approved the decisions
of the synod and added their signatures 2.

On Sunday, March 13th, all the bishops convened for the seg-
enth and last time in the St. Sophia. In this solemn general session
a report was given of what had happened at the meeting in the
palace 3. The formula of faith with its commentary, the Horos,
was presented to the Fathers and accepted. With a short exhorta-
tion the Roman legates addressed themselves to Photius, proclaim-
ed his acceptance and threatened with excommunication everybody
who refused communion with him. The Fathers of the synod join-
ed them: “‘We all feel the same and proclaim so. If anyone does
not accept him as God’s Pontifex, may he then be deprived of
the vision of God’s glory” 4. With this the synod ended.

2. THE SYNOD OF 879-880 IN HISTORY

The legates probably returned to Rome with somewhat

heavy hearts. Wouid Pope John understand the way they had
acted? Would he approve the council and what it had done?
However, their fears were groundless. After the Pope had
examined their reports and probably the Latin translation
of the Acts, and the letters of the Emperor Basil and Photius,
he accepted the results of the synod, but he did not fully approve
his legates’ conduct. In his answer to Photius he expressed his
joy that harmony and unity in the Church of Constantinople
had returned, but at the same time he showed surprise that so
much had been changed in his letters and instructions, although
he did not make anybody directly responsible. In very general
terms he said: “One wonders very much why apparently many
things which we had decided have been done otherwise, or altered,
and we do not know through whose planning or neglect these
changes came about”®.

. MANSI XVII 516 BCD.

- Ibids517) Dif.
. Ibid. 520 BCD.
. Ibid. 524 C.
. MGH
wns
ar Ep. VII 228: ‘“‘Mirandum valde est cur multa quae nos statu-

5
66

In particular the Pope was disappointed that Photius had

not asked for mercy and had not apologized, as had been his
express condition !. Photius had written to Pope John that he
had done nothing which demanded forgiveness. The Pope answer-
ed: ‘You suggested in your letter that it is your opinion that only
people who have done wrong should ask for mercy *. That was
not the question, but it was not right for Photius to justify him-
self—the Pope continued —as this showed lack of humility, and
besides an apology certainly would not have humiliated Photius.
It would rather have exalted him 3. Thus the Pope did not refer
to any mistake of Photius, or anything for which he was to be
blamed, when he wrote this. He even seemed to deny it in clear
terms. When Photius understood the demand for an apology in
that way, Pope John replied that the idea was for him to humble
himself before the Church and to express his brotherly affection
to Pope John and the Church of Rome. Photius had been con-
demned in 869 by a council. This synodical condemnation had to be
undone, and this was the occasion for the demand for mercy. It
was the form in which Photius was to ask for the revocation of
his condemnation. Pope John did not say that this condemnation
of 869 had been right or wrong. Therefore he did not want to
exaggerate the importance of his demand; in the letter he con-
tinued: “We do not want to exaggerate what we read has hap-
pened’ 4, namely that the demand for mercy had been drop-
ped. And Photius should not have been offended by this demand
for mercy. The Pope gives Photius the assurance: “If you will
try to show the right devotion and a growing faithfulness to the
holy Roman Church...”’, then he will embrace him as his bro-
ther and closest friend °.
This letter suggests that Pope John tended to accept Photius’

eramus, aut aliter habita aut mutata esse noscantur, et, nescimus cuius stu-
dio vel neglectu, variata monstrentur’. See also BURG, ““Paus Johannes VIII
en Constantinopel” in COH 6(1953 - 1954) 29f.
1. See the Papal letters in the Roman version.
2. MGH Ep. VII 228: “Scribens subintulisti, quod te innuente nonnisi
ab iniqua gerentibus misericordia sit quaerenda”’.
3. See DVORNIK 205 - 206 for the full translation of this letter.
4. “tamen nos, quod lectum est, exaggerare nolumus...”’.
5. “Si tu debitam devotionem et fidelitatis incrementa erga sanctam
Romanam ecclesiam, et nostrum parvitatem observare studueris...”.
 67

point of view. Probably the legates had succeeded in explaining

the real situation to him!. This is also to be concluded from
the following. Pope John did not accuse Photius himself of having
eliminated the condition of asking mercy. Perhaps he knew that
this elimination had been done at the suggestion of or in coope-
ration with his legates. They had understood that Photius had not
really been guilty, and had therefore eliminated the condition. For
that reason, the Pope reprimanded his legates too. He expressed
his disagreement with their action, but at the same time he accept-
ed the council and its decisions. Thus we read at the end of the
papal letter: “...we approve what has been mercifully done in
Constantinople by the synodal decree of your reinstatement, and
if perchance at this synod our legates have acted against our
apostolic instructions, then we do not approve their actions, and
we do not give any value to them” 2.
Dvornik explains the last clause as a measure to safeguard
the rights of the primacy of the Pope. He says: “‘If after a close
examination of the whole case it should ever become evident
that the legates had exceeded their mandate and disobeyed their
instructions to a degree incompatible with the rights of the papacy,
the possibility would be left open of shifting the responsibility
on to them and declaring the concessions null and void’ *. It
could be understood also in this way: Pope John fully accepted
the results of the synod, but simply abstained from approval
of the actions of his legates. This was of course a safeguard of his
primacy, but not in order to leave the way open to a possible
cancellation of the results later on, but to save himself the embar-
rassing confession, that he had misunderstood the situation of
the Constantinopolitan Church. The apology had formed an es-
sential part of the instructions of the legates. This had been changed
against his will. The Pope expressed wonder about it, but did

1. DvorNIk, ‘The Patriarch Photius in the light of recent research’, 39.

2. MGH Ep. VII 228: “Nam et ea, quae pro causa tuae restitutionis
synodali decreto Constantinopoli misericorditer acta sunt, recipimus. Et si
fortasse nostri legati in eadem synodo contra apostolicam praeceptionem
egerunt, nos nec recipimus, nec judicamus alicuius existere firmitatis”’.
3. DVORNIK 208; In Les légendes de Constantin et de Méthode, vues de
Byzance, Prague, 1933, 319, Dvornik had suggested that this clause was
an excuse of the Pope to Photius for the behaviour of the legates. Dvornik
later relinquished this opinion.
68

not withold his approval. Even in the final clause of his letter he
abstained from any judgement. He tended to justify the action
of his legates, but did not want to admit it. Perhaps he was not
absolutely sure. In any case, he still said: “What was mercifully
done...’. The recognition of Photius remained in the eyes of
Pope John an act of mercy '.

There was another reason why he was so lenient. This is clear

from the letter of Pope John to the Emperor ?. The Church of
Bulgaria was restored to the jurisdiction of Rome. The council
had not been willing to make any decisions in this matter, although
Photius had expressed his readiness to grant Rome “even what
had never belonged to her’, for the sake of friendship, but on
condition that the Emperor would agree *. Apparently the Em-
peror had agreed and written this to Pope John. Certainly Pope
John could have been more strict in his disagreement on the mat-
ter of the satisfaction which Photius had not given, but he did
not. He was satisfied. Hence with the same words as in the
letter to Photius—and with the same final clause—he approved
the council and what had been decided +.
Thus Pope John really approved what had been done at the
synod. He overlooked the conditions which he had earlier pre-
scribed. He did not necessarily agree with this cancellation, but
accepted it as a fait accompli. He approved thereby also the annul-
ment of the Council of 869° and what had been done against
Photius by his predecessors ®. At least he did not object, and
he accepted the Acts.

The Synod of Union was thus accepted in East and West.

Unity was restored. Contrary to what has been believed the peace
between the two Churches was not disturbed after this reconcilia-
tion. The Emperor Basil gave the Pope important concessions in
the matter of Bulgaria, as we have seen. A compromise was drawn

. GRUMEL, “‘Les lettres de Jean VIII .. ., 145.

. MGH Ep. VII 229 - 230.
. MANsI XVII 488 B, 417 Dff.
. MGH Ep. VII 230; Jucie, Le Schisme byzantin, 124.
. For the content of this ‘annulment’ in East and West, see page 199.
. DVORNIK 210, 308.
won
aunr
 69
up; in all honesty Photius returned the jurisdiction to Rome.
The Church of Bulgaria remained, however, under Byzantine
influence, because the Greek clergy were allowed to continue their
mission. The one who really profited by this continuous quarrel
over jurisdictions was King Boris who established the first national
Church on the Balkans. In 918 Bulgaria received its own Patri-
archate which in 926 was recognized by Rome, and in 927 by Con-
stantinople 1. A few years after the synod Photius had to resign
at the request of Emperor Leo VI in the political turmoil of 886
which overthrew Basil ?. Photius died on February 6, 891, in
communion with Rome. Soon he was venerated in Constantinople
as a saint, as even his enemies witness 3.

1. Ibid. 210; for the recognition of its patriarchate, see “S. RUNCIMAN,
A History of the first Bulgarian Empire, 174 - 176.
2. DVORNIK 228ff.
8. PG 105, 541. In the East Photius has become the hero of rebellion
against the West, especially against the Papal claims of primacy, and against
the Western theology of the Holy Spirit (filioque). This anti-Western atti-
tude has affected historical research into Photius’ veneration as a saint. Cf.
M. JuGIE, “Le culte de Photius dans l’Eglise byzantine” in Revue de I’Orient
Chrétién 23(1922 - 1923) 114ff. Thus it was possible for EYfTPATIAAOY, art.
cit. 463 to call Photius more anti-papist than Calvin, Luther or Zwingli.
Some interesting facts in connection with Photius’veneration as a saint
can be mentioned:
A. IIATAAGHOYAOY.- KEPAMEQS, «‘O raterceyng Datos a> mathe Kyroc
THC “Op00dd20v "ExxdAnotac» in BZ 8 (1899) 664, speaks about the transfer of
the skull of Photius from the monastery of Eremia to the Manuel Monastery,
according to an 11th century catalogue of patriarchs. He also testified to
having seen a copy of the synaxarion of the Great Church of Constantino-
ple which had been prepared around 950 at the instigation of Emperor Con-
stantine VII. This synaxarion contains the description of a liturgical servi-
ce in honour of Photius: Mvjun tod év aytorg matedc¢ judy xal ckoyreroxd-
tov Kwvotavtivourérews Detiov terctta: S&H adtod obvakic ev TH MEOPHTELw TOD
aytov TeoMHTov xa! Pantiotod "Iwdvvov, 4 Over év totic “Henutac, €wOev &xd tic
Meyers "Exxrnotas e2obongs tis Arts ual smaveoyouévyns ev 7H Poem, nal usta
tag exetce ovvnberc edyas mapamywwouevng ev tH clonuéevyn obvater», cf. TIATIAAO-
TIOYAOY - KEPAMEQ:, 662. This manuscript is codex 40 of the Holy Cross
Monastery in Jerusalem, cf. KAAAINIKOY, «‘O év aytoug deyrettoxotog Kev-
otavtivourérews Dadtioc», in *OobodocEfa 1(1926) 395. According to JUGIE, “Le
culte..., 105-107 this manuscript is of the 10th or 11th century.
Some synaxaria between 1000 and 1500 have a commemoration of Pho-
tius on February 6th, cf. H. DELEHAY, Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novem-
bris, Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e codice Sirmondiano nunc
70

With the synod of 879-880 the rivalry between the two camps
in the Byzantine Church had not really ended. It was not until
920 that finally the old divisions in the Church of Constantinople
were healed?. However, the anti-Photian writings which had come
from the camp of the Ignatian followers continued to have their
influence. They were later on accepted as the ultimate truth both
by West and East ®. In large measure they contributed to the
misunderstanding of the person of Photius.

The Council of 869 was not included among the Ecumenical

Councils by the Roman Church until the beginning of the twelfth

Berolensi, adjectis synazariis selectis, Bruxelles, 1902, 453. That Photius

later on no longer appeared in any synaxaria or menaea could find its explana-
tion in the fact that Greek liturgical books were printed in the West (Venice)
often with Catholic Imprimatur, cf. KAAAINIKOY, art. cit. 395.
A codex of Photius’ Responsa ad Amphilogium, at the Great Lavra of Mount
Athos (Lavra A73) has an icon of Photius. According to KAAAINIKOY, art. cit.
395 and also IIAMAAOMOYAOE - KEPAMEYS, art. cit. 664 this illumination is of the
10th century, but JuGre, “Le culte...’’, 108 thinks that the codex does not go
further back than the 13th century. A synodicon prepared under Patriarch
Sergius II (999 - 1019) contains a mention of Photius, cf. JUGIE, “Le culte...”,
108f. Some altar gospels also have a commemoration of St. Photius, cf. Mama-
AOMOYAOY - KEPAMEQS, art. cit. 668. Arethas of Caesarea, Nicholas Mysticus
(+925) and others called Photius already in the ninth or tenth century “a saint-
ly patriarch’, cf. TTAMAAOMOYAOY - KEPAMEQS, art. cit. 660. There are therefore
quite a number of indications which show an early veneration of Photius. On
Halki (near Constantinople) where Photius founded a monastery this venera-
tion has an unbroken tradition; in other places—due to the Photian legend—
he was more or less forgotten. But with a growing anti-Western mentality
the ‘sanctity’ of Photius received a polemic colour: his greatness was his
anti-Roman attitude. In establishing this sanctity, the border between hi-
story and legend was not very well drawn. cf. JuGiE, ““Le culte...”, 124.
His death on a Sunday was considered a special sign of his sanctity, cf.
TIATIAAOTIOYAOY - KEPAMEQY, art. cit. 657. The miracles at his tomb conver-
ted even his greatest enemies, such as Stylianos, TIAMAAOMOYAOY - KEPA-
MEQ®, art. cit. 656. Even in our days especially in Greece the sanctity of
Photius is often pictured in anti-Roman colours, cf. the liturgical texts of
the feast of Photius on February 6th: ‘Jega dxodovOia tod év dyiowg mateds
Huav xai toanoctéiov Patiov, natoidoyou Kwvotartwovmdisws tod bmohoyn-
tov, “AOFvor, 1951, 10, 18 - 19.
1. For this question, see H. GREGOIRE, “Etudes sur le neuviéme siécle”’
in Byzantzon 8(1933) 540. Also DVORNIK 237ff.
2. DVORNIK 216.
 7

century '. As is evident from declarations of Popes Marinus

II and Leo IX, of Peter Damian and Cardinal Humbert, both the
Roman and the Greek Churches counted only seven Ecumenical
Councils ?. The Photian Synod of 879-880 was not considered ecu-
menical. Official Byzantine treaties of the fifteenth century know
only seven councils although we find individual writers who consider
the Synod of 879 as number eight *. By an interesting coincidence
it happened that the Acts of the councils of the ninth century,
so far overlookedin the West, were rediscovered during the reign
of Pope Gregory VII (1078-1085). Their interpretation began to
exert a profound influence over the Western canonists and theolo-
gians. Until then Photius had played a very moderate réle in
history. It was known that he had been rehabilitated under
Pope John VIII. In order to find more cogent documentary evi-
dence for his definition of papal primacy, Pope Gregory opened
the pontifical archives to the canonists, charged with the compi-
lation of a new collection of canon law. What the canonists needed
most was a conciliar decision which could be used against the
influence of laymen (the kings and emperors!) in the appointment
of bishops. They discovered canon twenty two of the Ignatian
Council of 869-870. Overlooking the fact that this council had
been cancelled by another, the Photian Synod of 879-880—the
acts of which were also kept in the pontifical archives — they
began to consider the council of 869 as one of the most important
general councils. In their collections they 5 ane it the Eighth
Ecumenical Council4.
Together with the Acts the canonists also discovered the
letters of Pope Nicholas I relating to the Photian affair. Impressed
by the Pope’s courageous attitude against Michael II, and by
his excommunication of a patriarch, they constructed with the
help of these documents a firm basis for all papal claims. Anti-

4. TIAMAAOMOYAOY - KEPAMEQS, «“‘O matertoxnsg Datiog wg mathe Kyroc

zho “OpboddE0u Kaboruxie “Exxdqotacy in “LxxAnovaotuxt) "Adjbeva, mee. B’ 20
(1900) 107.
2. Pope Marinus II, PL 133, 874-875; Pope Leo IX, PL 143, 772
1004 (excommunication by Card. Humbert); Peter Damian, PL 145, 89- 98.
8. DVORNIK 420.
4. Ibid. 329; OGitsKos, ‘‘Konstantinopol’skie Sobory 869 - 870 i 879 -
880 godov...”, 223.
72

Greek feelings (this was after 1054!) also played a role. In such
an atmosphere there was no place for a reconciliation between John
and Photius, and so the story was invented of a second condemna-
tion of Photius by Pope John VIII. Some went so far as to conclude
that Pope Nicholas had excommunicated an Emperor—which
was untrue—and saw in this a precedent for Gregory’s excom-
munication of the Emperor Henry IV. The real historical events
were more and more forgotten. Photius was introduced into the
Schism between East and West. It was even doubted whether
the Synod of 879-880 had ever occurred. That is why in Har-
douin the synod is called ‘Pseudosynodus Photianus’. So history
was ‘corrected’ }.
Only one of the Gregorian canonists, Cardinal Deusdedit
preserved some extracts from the acts of the councils of 861 and
879-880, because he deemed them useful to justify certain papal
claims. His use of the Acts are a proof of their authenticity °.
His collection, however, was not disseminated so widely as the
other collections.

So the Photian Legend was born and believed, even in the

East; a new obstacle to the rapprochement of the parts of Chris-
tendom *. Baronius especially, who gave the legend its final
shape has to be blamed. This has continued until our time, although
after the Reformation a few scholars tried to rehabilitate Photius
in an anti- Roman way, without, however, much success.
Even the East has come under the influence of persons like
Baronius, such as Dositheus of Jerusalem and Elias Menates. But
at the end of the last century the work of Hergenroether and the
celebration of the millenium of Photius’ death gave the impulse
towards a renewed historical research on Photius, especially among
Russian and Greek Orthodox scholars.
It is evident that the acceptance of 869 as an Ecumenical
Council would never have happened in the undivided Church. In
880 peace had been restored between Rome and Constanti-
nople. The Church of Rome as court of appeal, or perhaps better
as point of reference, had been recognized in Constantinople.

. DVORNIK 279ff, 403ff; OGITSKOS, art. cit. 221.

. See above p. 52.
= . F. DVORNIK, The Ecumenical Councils, New York 1961, 44 - 47.
won
 73

However, the unity could not last. After 900 both Churches grew
more and more apart, and the Western Church came under the
influence of the German emperors who even appointed their own
Popes. This brought an end to the influence of Byzantium in. Rome.
The common point of reference was lost with the well-known
tragic consequences. One of them was this Photian Legend ?.

4, DVORNIK, The Ecumenical Councils, 47.

 PART TWO
ANALYSIS*

CHAPTER ULV

THE PAPAL LETTERS AND THE COMMONITORIUM

The letters which Pope John sent to Constantinople in 879,
have come down to us in two versions, the first found in the Reg-
ister of Pope John VII, called in this work the Roman Version
(=RV), and the other read during the sessions of the Synod of
879-880, the Constantinopolitan Version (=CV). We have already
explained this duplication. It will be noticed immediately that
the versions according to the Acts (=CV) are much longer than
the Roman versions. This is due partly to the more elaborate
language of the Byzantine adaptation, but often this version is
longer because it explains, comments on, or even denies statements
made in the original version. The Roman version may have been
shortened in some places as a result of the work of the registrar.
These two recensions present an exceptional opportunity
to compare the attitudes to various issues in Byzantine and Ro-
man thinking. These two attitudes form the focal point of our
analysis. For purely historical questions, connected with these
letters, we refer to Part One of this work, and the studies of Hergen-
rother, Dvornik and others !. For easy reference the two re-
censions are given in the Appendix (=App) printed side by side.

4. LETTER OF POPE JOHN VIII TO THE EMPERORS (App 1ff)

Introduction and greetings

This introductory text consists of the greetings of Pope John

* Owing to the need to examine the material separately, and to avoid

confusion, some of the passages in the Analysis and the Reflection will of
necessity be repeated.
1. HERGENROETHER, op. cit. Il 396-416; DVORNIK 159; GRUMEL, “Les
lettres de Jean VII pour le rétablissement de Photius” in LO 39(1940) 138ff.
 18

to the Emperors of Constantinople. The title has been elaborated

according to. Byzantine taste in the Constantinopolitan version.
The name of Constantine, the son. of the Emperor Basil by his
first wife, was replaced by the name Leo, his son by his second wife
Eudocia (App. 6 CV and 6 RV). Constantine had died shortly
before. Leo was not loved so much by Basil which was the reason
that he had not received prominence before 1. The Roman. ver-
sion. does not have the name of Pope John in its title; this is a
result, of the registration of the document 2.

Accordingto the original text the Emperor is first praised

for his wisdom and mildness (mansuetudo, App. 14-15 RV). This
was changed into ‘wisdom’ and ‘right faith’ (App. 13 CV xtore
opBodoziac). This is important. The Constantinopolitan version
speaks in this introductory part of the letter 5 timesof the right
faith of the Emperor: App. 13, mloter dpQodo%tac; App. 27, mloter
App. 40, 600368 micter; App. 82, 1d otedddov tio xlotewc;
and App. 91, 6p0%¢ mtotews. Also in App. 37 CV the impor-
tance of orthodoxy ’is expressed, but in other terms. The original
version speaks only twice about orthodoxy of faith: App. 40,
‘amore fide’, and App. 91, ‘recta fides’. The papal text lays much
more stress on devotion to the Holy See (App. 22, 40ff, 90,
98-103 RV). Here a different attitude is already to be observed.
Respect for the See of Rome was a self-evident characteristic of
the Emperor in the eyes of the Pope, who was highly conscious
of his superior position. For Photius this was not so apparent. The
Iconoclast controversy was only just beginning to die down,
and this had been a time when the orthodoxy of the Emperors
had been a problem, for they had in many cases defended the
heresy. Support and exhortation to orthodoxy from the side of
Rome was therefore very welcome to Photius. Besides, mildness
hardly seems a suitable attribute for Basil (the ruthless murderer
of Michael III) as the Pope in the original version seemed to
suggest. Would it not be more realistic and prudent to eliminate
this term?
Pope John pointed to the predecessors of Basil in order to
4

1. BREHIER, Vie et mort de Byzance, 110.

2. CASPAR, “Studien zum Register Johanns VIIT’, 90.
76

invite the Emperor to continue their attitude of respect and devo-

tion towards the Roman Church (App. 40-54 RV). The Roman
in
version has a direct reference to the Roman claim to primacy
the Church: Rome is the head of all Churches as Peter's suc-
cessor (App. 70-72 RV). The Constantinopolitan version eliminat-
ed this direct allusion by changing the text very little: ‘quam,
referring to ‘Roma’ (App. 70 RV) became ‘quem (Greek Gy)
referring to Peter (App. 67 CV). This formulation was more accept-
able to Photius and the Greek fathers of the synod, but at the
cost of a rather radical change of meaning. The Greek adaptation
of this passage is very similar to a passage of the homily of Pho-
tius at the end of the Synod of 8671. Some other expressions
from this homily are also found in this letter, so that a direct con-
nection cannot be denied. The Constantinopolitan version certainly
wanted to weaken the statement of Pope John, but it is also one of
the examples which shows the great respect of Photius for St. Peter.
The similarity with the homily of 867 proves the direct influence
of Photius in the adaptation of the papal letters of 879.
In the adaptation, the reference to the synod (App. 74 CY)
should be noticed, for it is missing in the Roman version. The
statement that everything is subject to Rome’s authority (App. 54
RV) is omitted. The reference to the honourable predecessors of
the Emperor (App. 61-63 CV) serves no longer to support the
Roman primacy, as in the Roman version (App. 54 RY), but it
seeks to explain why the Emperor had approached Rome in mat-
ters of Church unity (App. 47ff CV). For Photius it was an argu-
ment to stress the need for orthodoxy in the Emperor, and for
him to be active and zealous for harmony and peace in the Church
of Constantinople. The original letter was thus altered so that the
appeal of the Emperor to Rome became an expression of his
orthodoxy and of his desire for unity. Basil here followed the
tradition of his predecessors (App. 61 ff. CV). Pious devotion
to the Church of Rome, within which his love for the faith
would express itself, as the Pope had originally suggested (App.
86-92 RV), was not the greatest virtue of an emperor, but ra-
ther right faith itself, and concern that the faithful lve in har-
mony and charity (App. 81-85 CV).

14. MANGO, The homilies of Photius, 312.

 77

There is a certain lack of consistency in the argumentation

of the Constantinopolitan version. This was the result of the
desire of Photius and the Roman legates to leave as much
as possible of the original text untouched. For instance, the
text of the Gospel of St. John has been preserved: ‘pasce oves
meas (App.70 RV and CV), but what significance does it have in the
Constantinopolitan context? In the Constantinopolitan version the
Pope is happy to support the Emperor’s desire for unity and har-
mony. He is impressed by the cordiality of Basil’s letter, and will
do whatever the Emperor wants (App. 101 CV), but no more
mention is made of the reverence and respect towards the Roman
See which had been the reason for Pope John’s positive answer,
according to the original letter (App. 98ff RV). The ‘ardour’ of
Basil’s devotion (App. 99 RV) now becomes a characteristic
of Pope John (App.-103 CV, eap9évteg nugsot Sixny).
This introduction immediately reveals two mental attitudes.
Rome was thinking in terms of devotion and order (‘disciplinis’ App.
41 RV), hierarchy and authority (App. 117-120 RV), while Con-
stantinople was paying more attention to purity of faith, unity and
the bond of love (App. 39-45 and 91-97 CV).
Recognition of Photius
According to the Roman version the Emperor had only asked
that Photius be recognized as Patriarch (App. 121ff RV), but the
Constantinopolitan version included also those “who had by their
signature transgressed the law, or for other reasons were under
canonical punishment’ (App. 125-128 CV). They even received
the first place in this adapted text of the letter. They were the
Ignatian bishops who had signed the Libellus in 869, and who
hesitated to go back on their word and join Photius. Photius was
very eager to use the Pope’s support in his endeavours to win them
over to his side. The original version of the other letters of Pope
John contains an exhortation to them to give up their hesitant
attitude and for the sake of unity to submit themselves to Pho-
tius!. The Constantinopolitan version introduces this as_ well.
In the formulation, however, of the papal exhortation one no-
tices some Constantinopolitan thinking which could never have
been expressed by Pope John. Photius made the Pope say: ‘““They

1. See App. 972ff, 13410ff.

78
ine view
transgressed the law” (App. 126-127 CV). In the Byzant
should
they should not have added their signatures, and they
.
now follow Photius and not separate themselves from the Church
This however was certainly not the opinion of Rome. The bishops
ation
of the synod who heard this text would understand; the formul
was left vague, in order to satisfy both sides. It would be useless to
be too severe to the former Ignatian bishops, especially since many
had already given up their opposition, and had already joined Pho-
tius 1. This is an example—and there are many more—which shows
an attempt to minimize the differences between East and West.
Apparently, awareness of the differences existed, but were not
considered causes of disunity. The Constantinopolitan version, for
example, keeps a typically Roman expression: ‘we restore him’
(App. 137, 158 CV), with the implication that it is Pope John
who is responsible ?.
Pope John accepted the Emperor’s request to recognize
Photius for the sake of unity and peace within the Church (App.
137ff RV and CV), but he expressed his disappointment that
Photius had already taken possession of his office, despite the
fact that this was forbidden unless Rome were consulted (App. 158
RV). The Constantinopolitan version gives another explanation:
‘Although you (the Emperor) applied pressure to him, and restored
him before we, that is before our legates, had arrived in Con-
stantinople”’ (App. 156ff CV). This adaptation is more in keeping
with the facts. Photius had not sought his reinstatement, as he
explained during the second session of the synod. It was the
Emperor who had urged him to accept the Patriarchate again,
as was well known in Constantinople *. Photius left the strong
reference to Rome’s authority in the text (App. 164 CV).
These alterations can be seen as an act of respect towards
the See of Rome which ‘apparently’ had not been well informed.
To read the letter in its original version would have caused great
embarrassment in the aula.

1. At least 16 bishops at this synod had been present at the Council

of 869, cf. HERGENROETHER, op. cit. II 449ff. See also MANsI XVII 456 B,
where the bishops implicitly confessed that they had not always followed
Photius.
2. ‘droxatasthowuev’ (App. 137, 158 CV) is the term for a canonical
reinstatement of a bishop, cf. HERGENROETHER, II 339.
3. MANSI XVII 424 C.
 79
Pope John decided to take the time factor into consideration
and to forgive “what we know has been done to Photius in recent
times” (App. 149ff RV). Dvornik translates incorrectly when
he says: “We decree that Photius may be forgiven whatever he
is known to have done in the past” '. The text is written in the pas-
sive form and is a reference to the fact that Photius had not consult-
ed Rome, but an allusion can also be seen to the Photian af-
fair in general. For that reason the passive form is used 2. It
contains a reference to the Synod of 869, or rather to what was done
to Photius at the synod, namely his condemnation and deposi-
tion. Such an interpretation would well explain the choice of
examples Pope John gives to justify his action. The first exam-
ples were to demonstrate that an ecclesiastical law may admit
of exception for the good of the Church (App. 183ff RV); the last
example (App. 204 RV) spoke of bishops who had been deposed
—hecause of heresy, it must be noted—but reinstated for the sake
of peace within the Church. Pope John thus acted according to
the second canon of the Council of Nicea: necessity can demand
action against the laws of the Church (App. 178 RV).3 The
Constantinopolitan version formulated it a little differently and
said: “Because we have learned from the Church itself to act ac-
cording to circumstances (mpd¢ 7d cuuggpov &yetv) when a rigid
keeping of the law would weaken and destroy the Church” (App.
170-176 CV). In this way, the statement of Pope John indicated
that he had understood the changed circumstances and acted
accordingly (App. 149 RV and also CV). The adapted version
understood the examples given by Pope John, not merely asjustify-
ing his action toward Photius, although the latter had become pa-
triarch without consulting Rome. Photius understood very well
that Pope John had only revoked the sentence of 869. But for him
this revocation implied also the annulment of the Synod of 869 it-

1. As a result of German influence we later occasionally find ‘de’ in

stead of ‘ab’ or ‘ex’. This we cannot assume in the case of Pope John’s Regi-
ster which was not under German influence, cf. C. MOHRMANN, Etudes sur
le latin des chrétiens Roma, 1958, 427.
2. In the meaning of ‘what had happened’. “‘Nuper’ can also mean ‘in
the past’ without the connotation of ‘recent’, cf. in the Roman version of
the letter of Pope John to the bishops of Constantinople, App. 1208 RV.
3. “bums Depumedouev’ cf. sanatio in radice.
80

self, which. he read into the examples given by the Pope. He there-
fore wrote: “For the sake of unity in the Church one synod seems to
annul the other” (App. 213-215 CV). The original text had said
the opposite (App. 213-216 RV). This ‘contradiction’ reflects the
different degree of interest in synods between East and West. From
the Roman point of view the decisions of a synod can be annulled
without the synod itself losing its validity. In Byzantine thinking
the annulment of its decisions makes the synod itself null and
without value. The examples given by Pope John were unpleasant
to Photius, if used as analogies to his case. They all referred to
heretical bishops (App. 224 RV). Photius who was so concerned with
orthodoxy, could not let this pass without comment.
Absolution and acceptance
The Constantinopolitan version made (App. 230 CV) the exam-
ples of Pope John deal with heretics, but emphasized that also
orthodox bishops and patriarchs had taken refuge in Rome, and had
been restored to their former sees (App. 233ff CV). This addition in
the Constantinopolitan text shows Photius’ sensitivity when his
orthodoxy was attacked or suspect. He therefore added the
series of examples of orthodox bishops (App. 239ff CV) which
the original version used in another context (App. 445ff RY).
All these bishops had been restored by Rome although they had
been deposed or excommunicated by a synod (App. 245ff CV).
They were nevertheless orthodox (App. 234 CV). Pope John there-
fore did not only show his merciful condescension for the sake
of the unity of the Church in cases of bishops whose orthodoxy
was suspect (App. 222ff RV and 251ff CV). Bishops who were
known for their orthodoxy had even more reason to be restored
to their former dignity and should not be submitted to works
of penance, or considered penitents (App. 270ff CV). Retaming a
clear reference to the original letter, the Constantinopolitan version
thus eliminated the condition that Photius would be recognized
if he asked for mercy before the synod (App. 270-278 RY). Photius
was orthodox; he had not been wrong. Why therefore should he
ask for mercy? The Roman legates, who had learned to understand
the real situation of the Church of Constantinople, and who be-
came convinced of the rightness of the Byzantine opinion, agreed

1. MGH Ep. VII 228 (see p. 66 n. 2).

 81

to omit this condition. The plural which the Constantinopolitan

version uses (App. 270ff CV) justifies the opinion that this was a
reference to Photius’ friends and colleagues who had not been called
back from exile together with him +.

Pope John accepted Photius as his colleague, brother and

fellow-bishop (App. 293ff RV) because all the other (App. 279
RY). patriarchs agreed. This agreement—Pope John said—had been
expressed also by the archbishops and clergy ordained by Me-
thodius and Ignatius (App. 286-288 RV). This is a typically Ro-
man way of presenting affairs. In the eyes of the Pope the clergy
ordained by Photius had been deposed in 869 with him, and thus
were to be absolved too (App. 341 RV). In the Constantinopolitan
version, Photius left out this direct reference to Methodius and
Ignatius, as he did in all adaptations of the papal letters; appar-
ently it suggested too strongly that Photius had been wrong (App.
358ff CV). The patriarchs of the Oriental Sees functioned in another
context.

Having the authority of Saint Peter

Pope John was willing to ‘absolve’ Photius and all the other
bishops, priests and clergy who had been ordained by him (App.
310ff RV). Various reasons urged him to do so. Firstly, all the
other patriarchs seemed to be agreed on this (App. 279ff RV). Sec-
ondly, the Pope was pleased with the way the Emperor governed
his Empire; in his concern for peace he really took the place of
Christ (App. 302-304 RV). This is an interesting comment in
the mouth of the Pope. Finally, he desired fervently to put an
end to the friction and disunity within the Church (App. 305-
309 RV). He could do this, because of his care for all Churches
which had been entrusted to him, since Christ had charged Peter
with the words: “I give you the keys of heaven” (App. 330 RY).
Nothing had been excluded from this charge, Pope John stated
(App. 340-341 RV). “We can bind with absolute authority, and
we can absolve totally”. The Roman version then speaks about
the Synod of 869. Thus the comprehensiveness of papal responsilility
—also in the mind of Pope John—is connected with the Synod of
869 (App. 410ff RV). For Photius, this universal papal respon-

1. DVORNIK 166.
82

sibility was definitely connected with the Synod of 869: Pope John
could declare this synod null and void. The Constantinopolitan
version of this passage has altered the original text considerably.
Nevertheless, it gives us a clear picture of the Byzantine under-
standing of papal primacy.
The letter eliminated the reference to the absolution from the
sentence of 869 to which the original recension referred (App.
315-316 RY). The allusion to the papal care for all Churches—of
the Roman version—might well have been eliminated. Photius how-
ever did not leave it out; the primacy, given by Christ to Peter
in person is stated clearly (App. 319ff CV). What is now meant
by this primacy, in this version which was now acceptable to the
Byzantine bishops? It is a primacy expressing unity. Pope John
states that he agrees; unity therefore prevails (App. 353, 360-361
CV), for he is the voice of unity. The primacy of the Roman
Church is not so much an individual primacy, but involves the Ro-
man Church as a whole: ‘We together with the whole Church in
Rome’ (App. 351-352 CV), says the Constantinopolitan version.
Photius is here thinking along the lines of the synodal mentality
of the East. Roman primacy is a primacy of service, of mercy,
of restoration, of taking away disunity, and all other elements
which might disturb the peace within the Church. Such a pri-
macy, Photius is willing to accept. He even strengthened the Ro-
man argument with a quotation from Jeremiah (App. 338 CV),
which had been used by Pope Nicholas I in his letter to Mi-
chael. Apparently the Imperial Chancery remembered this letter,
and used it}. It is interesting also to notice that the text of Mt.
16:19 is applied to the Roman See, instead of to the person of the
Pope as in the text of the Register.
In the Constantinopolitan version, the Pope gives his reasons
for agreeing to the restoration of Photius as Patriarch: he is worthy

1. MGH Ep. VI 509. In this letter Pope Nicholas had protested a-

gainst the condemnation of Ignatius at the synod of 8641, which had been
against his will (see above p. 27). With a reference to this text of Jeremiah,
“constitui te super gentes...’’, applied to the Emperor, the Pope urged
him to retract all that he had done. By inserting this text in the Con-
stantinopolitan version of Pope John’s letter to the Emperors, Photius
reversed the argument. Now Pope John is ‘urged’ to do the same in the
case of Photius. So one has to understand this addition.
 83

of recognition (App. 370-371 CV) and it will restore the unity

and the peace of the Church (App. 372-375 CV). An elaboration
of these two reasons (App. 383ff CV) made it clear why the refer-
ence to absolution was eliminated: not only had Photius been
made the victim of a campaign (App. 377: mé&vra xantac xal Sorrd-
tyt0¢ tov) but also his qualities were so great that he deserved
to be restored.
One of the elements which had poisoned the atmosphere
of the last ten years was certainty the Synod of 869 which is the
subject of the next passage of the letter. The primacy of Rome,
its power to absolve (App. 341-345 RV), was a welcome argument
against this synod, and Photius himself made use of it when
attempting to have the decisions of 869 annulled. This does not
mean that he did not accept a Roman primacy as described. It
is impossible to believe that the alteration of the Constan-
tinopolitan version was only for political expediency. If the Byzan-
tine bishops had not accepted such a primacy, even the altered
letter could not have been read during the synod.
Rejection of the synod of 569
The Constantinopolitan version makes the Pope say that
both the synod of 869 and the Roman synod of 869 had been
annulled and repudiated (App. 417ff CV). They are called ‘unjust’
. synods (App. 407 CV). What did the original text say? The Roman
version has after apostolico (App. 417 RY) a blank space which
the edition of Monumenta Germaniae Historica suggests should
read something like ‘voluerunt divisv’ 1. This suggestion, however,
is not satisfactory. Pope John’s reasoning is as follows: the Ro-
man legates had signed the synod following the will of the
Pope exactly (App. 414-415 RV). Then follows the mutilated sen-
tence ‘nec ab apostolico... manere. The letter continues: “be-
cause the See of Saint Peter, keybearer of the heavenly Kingdom,
has the power to loose whatever Popes have bound, if it con-
siders it necessary’. This sentence ‘quia sédes... (App. 417-422
RV) is an explanation of something mentioned in the previous

1. MGH Ep. VII 171 ad ©; DvorNiK 177 also reads ‘nor did they
wish to remain severed from the Apostolic’. JOANNOU, art. cit. 480 points to
this open space and sees in it an indication that Pope John wanted to forget
about the synod of 869.
84

phrase ‘nec ab apostolico... manere’. The only logical reading in

this case would be a statement which weakened the fact that the
legates had signed the Synod of 869. The signing of the synod by
the legates was not irrevocable to the extent that it could not be
undone by another Pope, because a Pope can dissolve the deci-
sions of his predecessor. The hypothesis of MGH ‘voluerunt divisv
is not satisfactory because the following sentence ‘quia sedes...”
(App. 418ff RV) then becomes illogical. The only possible solu-
tion is that the letter contained a clear statement that the con-
demnation of Photius at the Synod of 869 was not to be consid-
ered final. A papal decision could revoke this sentence, and
that is exactly what Pope John was planning. This explanation
is strengthened by the examples which Pope John gave in the
following part of the letter. A number of patriarchs had been con-
demned by a synod, but they were reestablished by the Pope of
Rome, after having received absolution (App. 445-454 RV). The
statement of the all-comprehensiveness of papal power (App.
344-345 RV) further confirms this opinion.
The Roman version did not imply that Pope John was think-
ing of declaring the Synod of 869 itself null and void. This would
have been contrary to Rome’s way of thinking. Just as other
patriarchs had been condemned and deposed by a synod, so
had Photius. Pope John did not say that Photius’ condemnation
was right or wrong. At most one could guess he had a positive jud-
gement because of the examples of Athanasius and Cyril (App.
447{f RV). These patriarchs had been restored to thew sees by
the action of the Pope of Rome. In a similar fashion Photius had
received back his see because of the goodness and mercy of the
Roman Church (App. 445-454 RV). In connection with deposed
patriarchs, Pope John spoke of absolution (App. 452 RV).
This should not be understood as a moral judgement upon the
behaviour of the persons in question. The term refers to the quash-
ing of a condemnation. We should understand the request for
mercy which Photius was required to make before the synod, along
these lines. Photius was under synodal censure, and in order to
receive absolution from this he would have to ask for mercy.
Then the Pope would retract the sentence which the Synod of
869 had imposed upon him. This was absolution in the eyes of Rome.
Pope John did not think or speak of the synod itself, which was
 85

of little interest to the western mentality 1. For the Eastern bishops,

however, the annulment of the synod itself was important. They
paid great attention to the number of synods because a synod
was significant in itself, as the self-expression of the Church. If
a synod obviously did not justify this belief, then it should be
declared null, void, and non-existing as a whole, not merely its
decisions. So the Constantinopolitan version made it clear that
the Synod of 869 as such had no value (App. 406-407 CV) and
should not be the pretext for not accepting Photius.
The adapted version reflects the situation in which many
Byzantine bishops found themselves. They had signed the Li-
belius in 869, and the question of that synod was an important
one for them, which they could not simply disregard, nor did they
want to betray their respect for Rome which they had sealed with
their signatures. Photius had now made the Pope say that they
should not be afraid (App. 414-417 CV), that they could join Pho-
tius, and not hesitate because of their signatures in 869, because
that synod was invalid. If the Pope in his original letter had said
——as we suggested—that the sentence against Photius was not
necessarily permanent, Photius strengthened this: the Pope
had never accepted that sentence (App. 412-414 CV) nor any of the
synods which had been held against Photius under Popes Hadrian
and Nicholas. The bishops therefore should not feel guilty because
of their signatures. The Constantinopolitan version was favour-
able to Rome because it was directed particularly to those Igna-
tian bishops who hesitated to accept Photius. The papal letter
said that if they now accepted Photius, they would in fact be
continuing their respect and obedience towards Rome and the
Pope (App. 430-433 CV), but that if they refused, they would
clearly be refusing respect to Peter, and in him to Christ who
gave the Apostle this authority (App. 434ff CY).

Did Photius change the essence of the papal letter in this pas-
sage? It would be more correct to say that Photius translated
the ideas of Pope John into a language which could be understood
in the East. Photius, not wishing to alienate the Ignatian bishops,
protected the authority of the Roman Church to which they had com-

1. Deusdedit (VON GLANVELL, op. cit. 60) understood that Pope John
had only annulled the sentence against Photius.
86

mitted themselves in 869. What had happened, he made the Pope

say, was a sin of history, and as Christ takes away the sins of the
world, he will also remove this sin (App. 422-424 CV). Peter and
Christ are introduced in the sane context, as in App. 440-441 CV.
The way Photius handled the difficult problem of the bish-
ops who had signed the Council of 869, and therefore now hesi-
tated to accept him, shows his prudence and wisdom as a di-
plomat, and as a educated man who was above pettiness. He
was aware of the differences between East and West, as is clear
from his adaptation of this passage of the papal letter, but these
were not sufficient to rupture the fundamental unity'.
One point of this passage still has to be clarified: what could
be the reason for the gap in the original version (App. 417 RV)?
It has been suggested that the damage done to one manuscript
was caused by one of the canonists of the Gregorian Reform or
by someone else who wished to destroy all evidence that Pope
John had annulled the Council of 869. This could also be the
reason why the commonitorium in its original form would not
have been preserved. Ivantsov maintains that it was destroyed ?.
It is also possible that the gap is the result of a mistake in the
registration. Perhaps the copyist could not read the original
manuscript, or the registrar was not very clear in his formulation.

Exhortation to the Emperors (CV)

In the next passage Photius made the Pope say in a long
exhortation that the cause of all troubles in the Church of Con-
stantinople had been the lack of respect paid by the Emperors
to the Patriarch and the clergy (App. 467ff CV). The Emperors
had given too much attention to calumnies against clerics. This
passage is not really a creation of the Constantinopolitan version.
It is only an elaboration of a short exhortation which Pope John
wrote at the end of his letter (App. 682ff RV). The language of
Photius, however, is much more direct; he accuses the Emperor
in strong terms, while Pope John had used milder language (App.
462ff CV and 703ff RV).
This exhortation (in both versions) gives a good example

4. OGITSKOJ, art. cit. 227.

2. IVANTSOV - PLATONOV, art. cit. n. 283, 6.
 87

of the relations between Church and State at this period of the

Byzantine Empire. In the Christian society of the Byzantine Empire
the functions of the Church and of the Patriarch and clergy cannot
be formulated or separated along the lines of jurisdiction, authority
or power, as was done later in the West. The Emperor was the
Head of the Christian Family, but the Patriarch was his spiritual
father (App. 481 CV and 689 RV), his guide and teacher (App.
499 CV). The Emperor should therefore venerate the Patriarch
as his mediator before God (App. 482 CV and 691 RV) who watched
over his spiritual well-being (App. 484-486 CV) and who showed
him the way to eternal salvation (App. 501-503 CV and 692-
693 RV). When the Emperor had sinned, the Patriarch (and the
priests in general) asked God’s mercy (App. 487-491 CV). They
prayed for his success, and victories (App. 493-495 CV), and for
the well-being of all Christians (App. 496-497 CV) which is clear-
ly synonymous with subjects here. In sum, the ‘Patriarch was
defined as one who takes the place of the Emperor with God (App.
498 CV). His love for the Emperor was therefore greater than
that of others, more sincere and honest, and not like the love of
his flatterers (App. 506 CV).
This understanding of what a patriarch was, and what priest-
hood meant, was intended to urge the Emperor to treat the Patriarch
with respect; he should not listen to rumours, stories and calumnies,
which would only divide the one garment of the Church of Christ
(App. 530 CV and 710 RV). The Emperors were further to as-
sist Photius in the restoration of unity. They should punish
those: unwilling to accept Photius (App. 532ff CV), ‘for the Em-
peror can sometimes accomplish what the fear of God cannot’
(App. 538ff CV). Here the original letter had again been adapted
to persuade the hesitating Ignatian bishops.

This passage ended with a final exhortation thatif the Emperor

did this, he would inherit eternal life, and his Empire would last
for ever in peace and security (App. 544-549). If on the other hand,
the Emperor did not follow this advice, the schisms in the Con-
stantinopolitan Church would never end (App. 549-552 CV). This
strong exhortation reveals something of the authoritative person-
ality of Photius. In the Iconoclast controversy it had been obvious
how much damage the influence of an Emperor could do to the
Church if he supported heresy. The Emperors Leo III and V had
88
Photius recog-
caused immense difficulties and disunity '. Although
the Familia
nized the special position of the Emperor within
on and of his
Christiana, he certainly was aware of his own positi
yield to any
own responsibilities as patriarch. In no way did he
the Emper or could forget the
form of Caesaropapism in which
great churc hman, fighting
role of the hierarchy. Photius was a
of the Church . His
for what he saw as the freedom and genuineness
on, but
extremely balanced education prepared him for this positi
also in-
the independent attitude of the recent Popes of Rome
positi on in his own Churc h of
spired him to take a more free
Constantinople. This might explain why Photiu s showe d such
veneration for Saint Peter, as is noticeable throughout . This pas-
sage thus shows Photius’ respect for the Roman Church, which
endeavoured to stay free from interference from outside.

The Constantinopolitan adaptation of this passage did not

violate the original version, but was rather an elaboration. The
original letter also had expressed the contemporary Byzantine
view of the relations between Church and State (App. 682ff RV),
but its language was milder and not always as direct as that of
Photius. There is little reference to the special position which the
Pope was aware of possessing within the Church. In the Con-
stantinopolitan version of this passage particularly we find in-
dications of a development in the relations between Church
and State, between Patriarchate and Empire, towards greater
independence for the Church.
Promotion of laymen to the episcopacy
In a later paragraph the papal text dealt with the question
of the promotion of laymen to the episcopacy (App. 553ff RY).
This had been the reason—or at least one of the legal reasons—
for Photius’ deposition by Rome in 869. By referring to this, Pope
John showed himself to be in agreement with his predecessors.
In the Roman version, the recognition of Photius and the ‘absolu-
tion’ from the sentence of 869 were granted on the express con-
dition that in future no layman would be ordained to the epis-
copate (App. 553 RV ‘eo tenore ista statuentes’. ‘Ista refers to

1. ANASTOS, “Iconoclasm and Imperial rule 747

- 842”, in CMH IV
ig ila
 89

4AOfE RV). It was a decision of Pope John (statuentes), which

expressed his firm conviction on the matter. In the Constantinopo-
litan version this question of episcopal consecrations was connected
with the restoration of unity in the Church of Constantinople.
Todzo (App. 553 CV) refers to 544-552 CV and the preceding
exhortation, although it may also be one of the small inconsis-
tencies that came about through the ‘adaptation’ of the letter.
The decisive statementof the original letter has been weakened
to an exhortation (App. 553 CV Taoxtvovuey) and so as to agree
with Byzantine thought the subject of this exhortation is no longer
the Pope, but the Emperor. i
The Pope spoke of ‘laicts vel curialibus’ (App. 558-559 RV).
Photius translated this by xooux@y &2:opcétmv—secular dignities.
This formulation was more accurate. The question was not about
the laity in general, as the Roman version seemed to suggest, re-
flecting the clericalization of the West where the clergy were the
educated class. In the Byzantine world only a certain section of the
laity ought to be ineligible for high ecclesiastical office, namely those
who had exercised higher functions in political life. It seems that
the Constantinopolitan version wished to safeguard the possibility
of outstanding laymen being candidates for the patriarchate. The
Constantinopolitan version agreed with the arguments of the
Pope. It was a good custom to ascend only gradually to episcopal
office. In this way the wrong person was less likely to be-
come bishop (App. 577ff CV and RV). In the case of Photius,
Pope John—in the Roman version—yielded to the need for unity
and peace in the Church (App. 603). Photius did not change this
and in no way pointed to his own worthiness, as would later be
done both during the synod, and in the letter to the bishops ?.
The Papal letter spoke about the various orders according
to the Roman liturgical tradition—lector, acolyte, deacon and
priest (App. 572 RV) * This part of the letter was not changed
because it was unnecessary (App. 574-576 CV). The letter
came from Rome and thus rightly reflected the Roman liturgical
customs. Even the word cardinal has been preserved, in the
Greek as well (App. 563 CV), but because this term might be

1. E.g. App. 1284 - 1284 CV.

2. See LThK I 1957, 245 Akolythen.
90

the Roman
unknown to the Byzantine bishops, the status of
ed to the cathe-
cardinals is explained: they are the clergy attach
the “ec-
dral Church (éyxatatetaypévov ev 77 noonny exxrnotx),
oy) in the
clesia catholica’ (in Greek: xaOorrxh exxdnotx or xa8orx
sense of the principal church of a city or a monastery.
As might have been expected, Photius recalled the case of
chate
his uncle Tarasius who had also been promoted to the patriar
without the canonical intervals, but he agreed that 7% yap onama
dyad od Shvatar vouoc elvan toig modAvtc (App. 618-619 CV). Pope
John also referred extensively to Tarasius in his letter to the
clergy of Constantinople.

Pope John informed the Emperor that he would agree to

his requests about Photius and about the priests who were from
‘the other ordination’ (App. 629 CV). What does this 2 érépac
yeporoviag mean? If one considers that the Constantimopolitan
version also purported to be a Roman letter, written by Pope
John to the Emperor of Constantinople, this text must be under-
stood as a reference to the ordinations by Photius of the
Photian bishops who were under the censure of 869. But this does
not explain why the Pope spoke in one sentence about ‘him’ and
‘other’ (App. 628-629 CV) instead of ‘him’ and “his ordination’.
It is therefore not impossible that Photius ‘forgot’ that the Pope
was speaking and thought here of the Ignatian bishops. The priests
of the ‘other’ ordination would then be the bishops and priests
ordained by Ignatius and Methodius. Photius has in mind here the
reference: to them in the Roman version (App. 285-287 and 728
RV), but he eliminated the names of Ignatius and Methodius. John
urged the Ignatians to give up their hesitation and to accept
Photius, as we have seen many times already. Yet while in the
past they had been the loyal clergy in the eyes of Rome, in Constan-
tinople they were seen as the troublemakers. This Constantino-
politan mentality becomes obvious—almost too obvious—in this
version of the letter. In the light of Photius’ interest in winning the
adherence of these former partisans of Ignatius, one can understand
the stress on the importance of Rome in this passage. Therefore
(App. 623-627 CV) the Pope spoke of the mercy of Christ which
aroused his compassion. To know this was certainly a great sup-
port to the Ignatian bishops and clergy. It is also possible that
Photius purposely kept the text a little obscure and open to double
 of

interpretation so as not to offend the Ignatian bishops who had

already come over to his side. Photius himself was willing to accept
the regulation of Rome which excluded the future promotion
of laymen to the episcopacy. This is clear from the fact that he
pointed to the canonical consequences of this disohedience much
more strongly than in the original draft (App. 631-634 CV
and 603ff RV). His colleagues at the synod did not share this
opinion when they discussed the matter. Each local church had
the right to decide for itself how to elect a bishop or patriarch !.
However, in these discussions at the synod there was no men-
tion of the short interval between the various ordinations required
in the letter. Rather the question arose as to whether a curial
magistrate could become bishop °.

An interesting difference in both versions lies in their ideas

about the Church. The original version seemed to conceive of unity
within the universal Church for which the Pove of Rome had a
special responsibilily; for the sake of this unity he was making an
exception to this law forbidding laymen to become bishops im-
mediately: “What we consider of little importance in view of the
unity and peace of the Church which Christ the Lord enjoined us to
keep” (App. 603ff RV). In the Constantinopolitan version this
becomes: “We having in mind the restoration of the peace in
your Church...” (App. 603-605 CV), that is to say the local
Church of Constantinople.
The Diocese of Bulgaria
The Bulgarian question had played an important role in dis-
turbing relations between Rome and Constantinople. Therefore,
as a condition or ‘price’ for his favorable attitude towards Photius,
the Pope demanded from the Emperor that the Patriarch should
not exercise any authority in Bulgaria (App. 635ff RV). The
Constantinopolitan version weakened this condition to a simple
request (App. 637 CV: &étoduev, ‘we would appreciate’). This
text speaks only about the future (App. 641 CV: azo 70d viv). Does
this mean that Photius had in fact ordained clergy for Bulgaria, or
sent the pallium there? During the synod * he said that he had not

1. MANS! XVII 489BC; OGITsKOJ, art. cit. 220.

2. MANSI XVII 488E.
Sy bid ai Ds
92

done so during his second patriarchate. Apart from this there is

no alteration in the revised version where the Bulgarian question
is concerned. The description of the missionary activity of Rome
is worded in roughly the same terms (App. 642ff RV and
CV). The Constantinopolitan version added a few arguments in
favour of the Roman position: ‘‘one should not build on a founda-
tion laid by someone else” (App. 646 CV). Photius referred to the
fact that this ecclesiastical province had been taken away from
Rome (App. 662-667 CV). He recalled the action of Leo Ill
who had transferred Illyricum to the jurisdiction of Constanti-
nople +. As an Iconoclast Emperor he certainly did not enjoy the
sympathy of Photius. However, Photius changed the argument,
as Pope John was speaking about the Greek missionaries in Bulga-
ria (App. 658-671 RY).

The Roman version contains three blank spaces in the text

(App. 662, 664, 666 RV). The edition of the Monumenta Germaniae
Historica ? suggests some additions.
The text would then read:
..nec aliquam cuiuscumque honoris ibidem ordinationem fecerit,
quoniam sunt illicite ordinati episcopi vel sacerdotes ab archiepi-
scopo, vel episcopis qui ibidem videntur exsistere, nec sacrum pal-
lium quo inter sacra Missarum sollemnia uti Pontificibus solitum
est, ipse Patriarcha mittere praesumpserit.
This is a plausible explanation of these gaps. The suggestions
of MGH make it clear that Pope John did not accuse Photius
of having in fact ordained bishops or sent the pallium. There were
already bishops and priests in Bulgaria, ordained by the Arch-
bishop there, and, Photius had not sent any pallium. But this ex-
planation of MGH does not answer all the questions. The con-
text seems to suggest that Pope John did not know if Photius
had ordained or not; he used the perfect tense in App. 660, 662,
671 RY. Therefore it seems that the sentence ‘ibidem sunt
ulicite ordinati episcopi vel sacerdotes ... archiepiscopo, vel
episcopis qui ibidem videntur existere cannot have the sense
of stating that the bishops in Bulgaria were illicitly ordained by
the lawful archbishop there. The more logical explanation of this

4. ANASTOS, art. cit. 74f.

2. MGH Ep. VII 173 - 174.
 93

passage is that, besides the lawfully ordained archbishop and

bishops, there were also bishops and priests of uncanonical ordi-
nation. Pope John asked if this were perhaps the work of Pho-
tius. It would therefore be better to add the words ‘una cum’ in
App. 664 RV, instead of ‘ab’. This text would then affirm that
after 869 Ignatius had made use of Photian clergy and bishops
together with his own missionaries for Bulgaria?. This fact
was not very acceptable to later anti-Photian circles. Thus it
is possible that the gaps were later erasures to discredit Photius,
but on the other hand they may have been the work of the Regis-
trar of Pope John’s letters. Perhaps he did not fully catch the
meaning of the notes in his outline ?.

In an added section which does not exist in the Roman text,

the Constantinopolitan version speaks of the bishops in Bulgaria.
If there were bishops guilty of misbehaviour in the eyes of Rome,
they should not be allowed to take refuge in Constantinople (App.
674-681 CV). There should exist a spirit of cooperation in these
matters between Rome and Constantinople. Because this is an
addition of the Constantinopolitan version, it probably also has
to be understood in the sense that bishops under canonical
suspicion in Constantinople should not find asylum in Rome.
What this refers to, is not very clear. It would be interesting to
investigate the exact circumstances of the prosecution of Saint
Methodius, the Apostle of the Slavs who was called to Rome in
880 to defend himself against various accusations. Perhaps the
addition refers to this event *. The synod would answer this
passage of the letter by ratifying a canon on mutual cooperation
regarding censured clergy *.
Exhortation to the Emperors (RV)
This Roman version of the exhortation to the Emperors has

1. DVORNIK 160.
2. CASPAR, art. cit. 105ff.
3. F. Grivec-F. Tomsic, Constantinus et Methodius Thessaloni-
censes, Fontes, Zagreb 1960, 53; MGH Ep. VII 160-161; cf. F. DvoRNik,
Les Slaves, Histoire et Civilisation, Paris 1970, 117, footnote 5; OGITSsKoJ,
art. cit. 218 points to the relation between Photius and Cyril. At the end of
his life Cyril was not liked very much by Pope Hadrian IT.
&. MANSI XVIE 497D.
94

been analysed together with the Constantinopolitan version on

page 86. Pope John was not so direct as the revised version makes
him sound. On the other hand this text is a clear witness that
the Pope knew very well that the Emperor had not paid enough
respect to the patriarch, but he communicated this in much friendlier
language (App. 687-689 and 715-720 RY). He was aware of the
influence of the rumours and stories to which the Emperor had
given ear, and which had been the cause of the troubles. The Pope
formulated this conviction in a language that the Emperor could
understand; his behaviour had not accorded with his imperial
dignity (App. 707 RY).

The Ignatian bishops and clergy

The subject of this passage of the letter are the bishops and
priests, who had followed Ignatius and now hesitated to join Pho-
tius and accept him as their patriarch. In the Roman version the
Pope ordered (App. 724 RV ‘mandamus’) the Emperor to call back
all the clergy who had been ordained by [gnatius and in goodness to
unite them to the Church. Some of them apparently were in exile
(‘longe seu prope retrusos’, App. 736 RV), while others were in the
city (App. 735 RV). The Emperor was to give orders that they be
restored to their sees (App. 743-745 RV). Herewith the end of
all friction and rupture would be brought about. Bound in the bond
of love all were to pray for the Emperor and his empire. The Con-
stantinopolitan version shows a different tendency. Not for the first
time the ‘mandamus’ of Pope John has been changed into ‘hor-
tamur’ (App. 724 CV, in Greek, napaxaroduev—we invite). This ver-
sion makes no mention of the name of Ignatius, but speaks more
generally of all ‘who seem separated from yow (App. 734 CV). This
was enough; whether they had been ordained by Photius or Igna-
tius was irrelevant. Some had united themselves already, as is
clear from the fact that some sees were doubly represented at the
synod !. Their restoration to their former functions and dignity
(their sees are not mentioned App. 745 CV) was conditional on
their acceptance of Photius (App. 739-740 CV). In their unity
under Photius they would express their unity with the Church.
(App. 750-756 CV).

1. HERGENROETHER, op. cit. IT 450ff.

 35
Both versions elaborate the importance of Church unity with
the same arguments; very little has been changed here. The
addition, “God is one’ (App. 748 CV=Eph 4:5) is perhaps an
expression of the interest of the East. The short allusion to Christ
as our Peace, of the original version (App. 763-768 RV) has be-
come a little stronger and is worded differently (App. 764-772 CV).
The one fold and one shepherd (App. 759-760 RV) is left out in
the Constantinopolitan version; perhaps there was in this phrase
an understanding of Church unity which sounded strange to the
Byzantine bishops, who were thinking more—as we have noticed
before—in terms of their local Church and its unity. In the West
the Church was seen easily in its universality under the universal
care and guidance of the Pope of Rome.

Those who refused to accept Photius’

The papal letter ends with a strong exhortation to those
bishops, priests and laity who refused to communicate with
Photius. Although the wording was a little different in the orig-
inal version and in the letter according to the Constantinopolitan
adaptation, the meaning is the same. They were deprived of Holy
Communion until they had united themselves to the Church (App.
784-805 RV and 784-802 CV). Photius left out the explicit excom-
munication of the bishops by the Roman Church (App. 796 RV).
In the original version the excommunication had been formulat-
ed in reverse too, probably to stress the importance of the issue.
Pope John said then that, if Photius were to have communion and
communication with these dissenting bishops, he would also be
excommunicated (App. 806ff RV). This made little sense because
in the case of Photius’ having communication with his opponents
—if they allowed this—the issue would find its solution, and unity
would be a fact. In the revised version we find no mention of
it. It was therefore probably a mistake made by the registrar
who used the same formulation here as at the end of the
letter to Photius, where this threat of excommunication fitted
in the context (App. 1140-1113 RV). With this formulation the
original version of the Papal letterends.

Final remarks
The Constantinopolitan version made a short addition refer-
ring to the commonitorium where other questions regarding this
96

excommunication were treated more extensively (App. 813ff

CV). With this remark Photius made the reading of the letter of
Pope John to the Ignatians superfluous 1, The addition elabora-
ted the meaning and purpose of the synod. Pope John had mention-
ed this in App. 751ff RV. The synod was to do all it could to elimi-
nate fully the rest of the difficulties and make provisions for a
happier future (App. 822ff CV). The letter ends with a salutation
and with good wishes to the Emperor (App. 839-842 CV). That
these greetings and wishes are absent in the Roman version of the
letter is probably the result of the registration, where it frequently
happened that titles and greetings were left out *.

2. LETTER OF POPE JOHN VUI TO PHOTIUS (App. 845ff)

Greetings
One may doubt whether the original version of the letter had
the rich epithets of the Constantinopolitan version (App. 845-
848 CV), but it is improbable that such an official letter was
without any titles. This lack in the Roman version is therefore
probably the work of the registrar. The name of Pope John was
frequently left out in the registration *.
Apart from its more ornate language, which reflects Byzan-
tine tastes, the Constantinopolitan version is substantially the
same (in this introduction) as the original version of the papal
letter to Photius. The allusion to Photius’ orthodoxy in the Roman
version (App. 864-865 RV ‘se in veritate quaerentes’) is taken over
using more or less the same wording (App. 863-865 CV). At the
beginning the letter refers to the wisdom of Photius which was
as famous in Rome‘as in Constantinople (App. 852 CV). It
would be strange not to mention it in a letter which was to be
read to the bishops of the city where he had been professor. The
statement that God is the foundation of unity within the Church
(App. 861-862 RV) was kept in the Constantinopolitan version
in the same terms (App. 862 CV).
In the analysis of the first letter (to the Emperors) we have
noticed the interest of Photius in gaining the support of the hes-

A= Seep. 120ff
2. CASPAR, art. cit. 116f.
3. Ibid. 90, 109; DvORNIK 179ff.
 OF
itant clergy and laymen who did not yet want to follow him 4,
and this is traceable in the adapted version of this letter. This,
put into Pope John’s mouth, suggests that the Pope blessed Pho:
tius for his efforts to win Has those people (App. 872ff CV).
The original version had a small reference to the fact that
Photius had not always been dedicated to Rome (App. 884 RV:
- quam sis nunc erga nos devotus’). Photius probably under-
acd this hint; he left it out and changed the word devotus into
a more ae word attitude (d.d0eoww App. 882-883 CV). Did
‘devotion’ sound too submissive? The Pope then gave a short
lesson in humility. “When he is the subject of praise, he always
keeps in mind his own human frailty” (App. 886ff RV). Photius
elaborated it further, and especially mentioned the fact that only
God sees a man in his true dimension. Human praise can greatly
deceive (App. 886ff CV). It is not impossible that Photius
thought of the treatment he had received in the past, hoping that
God might judge him better than men had done. Does this elabo-
ration perhaps reflect unconsciously the life of Photius? Was it
for this reason that he kept only the first part of the Gospel quo-
tation: “gui se exaltat, humiliabitur’? (App. 904 CV); he was a
spiritual man and maybe did not want to speak or think of his
exaltation.
The Legates’ refusal to concelebrate with Photius
Pope John mentioned a few points of the letter which Photius
had written to him. The people of Constantinople were all united
around him as their patriarch and in full agreement with him (App.
907-909 RV). Photius had again been restored to the see of which
he had been deprived (App. 909-910 RV, a reference to 869),
and the legates had not celebrated with Photius on their arrival
in the city (App. 916-917 RV). The Pope expressed his joy about
the achieved unity, which Photius in his letter had described, and
then spoke about the matter of the concelebration. The explana-
tion is not difficult: John had not given any mandate about it.
After all he had not been aware of how the situation had changed
in Constantinople after the death of Ignatius (App. 919ff RY).
The Constantinopolitan version enumerated these same elements
which proves that the Pope’s quotation of Photius’ letter was

4, Seerabove ps 77, p. 85, etc.

98

exact. But in speaking about the restoration to his see, Photius

stressed that his removal had been unjust (App. 911 CV: 6 Oe6vo¢
d¢ Hy WS1d¢ cov). The question of the refusal of the Roman legates
to concelebrate with him was elaborated, but the Roman argu-
ments were maintained (App. 916ff CV). The legates had refused
to concelebrate with Photius—Pope John explained—‘because
we did not give up what we had ordered them to do”. This has the
same meaning as the original text (App. 919-922 RV), but is formu-
lated more strongly. In Rome, Pope John had not been aware
of the situation in the Church of Constantinople after the death
of Ignatius. Photius had been restored to the throne. The legates
had expected to find Ignatius alive and in charge of the patri-
archate, and their instructions were in accordance with this sup-
posed situation. They did not know what action to take, and were
afraid to act on their own responsibility, remembering what had
happened to their colleagues Rodoald and Zacharias in 861. They
therefore abstaiaed from making contact with Photius.
Photius had taken this hesitation of the legates very serious-
ly, and had been offended by it. He made the Pope say that it
certainly would not have happened, if the Pope had given them
instructions (App. 923ff CV) or had known the situation better
(App. 927ff CV). In that case the Pope would have sent his legates
to congratulate and to console him (App. 932 CV). The word console
(raeapvOoduevor) in this context could suggest that Photius really
had not sought the patriarchate, as is suggested in the discussion
during the synod on this matter!. Photius should not be angry
about the behaviour of the legates, Pope John said. What had been
a fault, had been whole-heartedly corrected (App. 936-937 CV).

This adaptation of the letter, in its elaboration of the matter

of the concelebration, shows clearly Photius’ respect for the Roman
Church, and that he valued communion with Rome highly. Indi-
rectly this passage is witness to the fact that the Roman legates
had taken a more independent stand. They had shown some ini-
tiative: they had understood the letter which Pope John had sent
them through his legate Cardinal Peter 2. In their independent
behaviour the legates were acting according to the will of Pope John.

1. MANsI XVII 421C.

2. MGH Ep. VII 188 - 190.
 99

Those who refused io accept Photius

Together with his joy at the peace and unity achieved in
the Church of Constantinople (‘ipsius ecclesiae’), the Pope ex-
pressed his sorrow that there were still people who resisted uniting
themselves with Photius (App. 946ff. RV). Had this been written
by Photius in his letter to Rome, or had the Pope received this
from other sources? Each time the papal letters speak about these
people who refused to accept Photius, the revision elaborates
the issue more, and with stronger language. Apparently the papal
letters in their original version did not exactly express reality.
Photius elaborated it further (App. 938ff CV), twice calling
them ‘schismatics’ (App. 939, 951 CV). Apparently he hoped that
the authority of Rome would urge them to give up their opposi-
tion. In this context the words of Pope Leo the Great were impor-
tant for. Photius. Pope Leo had said that in cases of difficulty the
Roman See acted authoritatively, but with temperance; ‘sternly
towards the diehards, and mercifully towards those who repented’
(App. 978-984 RV). Photius quoted this text in his own words
(App. 978ff CV),omitting the word ‘moderatio’? as it probably
stressed too strongly the authority of Rome. In the adaptation
it became simply: the Pope ‘who accepts’ (App. 981 CV) and
‘hardens his heart’? (App. 982 CV). This alteration is another exam-
ple in which Photius showed that he was aware of the different
understanding of the place of Rome in the Church in East and
West. une
Pope John had expressed his disappointment about Photius’
elevation to the patriarchal throne without the previous consulta-
tion of Rome (App. 955-958 RV). Only for the sake of peace was the
Pope willing to yield in this matter. Apparently he had not known
about the death of Ignatius (App. 958-961 RV). In the Constan-
tinopolitan version the reference to Photius’ elevation was left
out. Later the Fathers of the synod said that it was their own respon-
sibility to decide who would be patriarch '. The need of previous
consultation could not be understood in the East, and was therefore
eliminated. Besides, it was no concern of Photius, who had ascend-
ed the throne not by his own will, but because the Emperor had
urged him to. If there were any guilt, the Emperor would be to

1. MANs!I XVII 488 - 489.

100

blame. For this reason this question was not eliminated in the
revised version of the papal letter to the Emperors, but was elab-
orated very carefully '.
Absolution and acceptance
The next passage of the letter speaks about the acceptance
and recognition of Photius by Pope John, and about the condi-
tions involved.
The original letter is written in the tone of a superior who
pardons a subject who comes to him as the prodigal son. “Someone
who has repented should not be refused merey’ (App. 989-991
RV). Pope John was willing to absolve Photius because of his
repentance. The conditions were that Photius should give satisfac-
tion before the synod and ask for mercy (App. 993-995 RV), and
should also give proof that his conversion was genuine and would
not be retracted in the future (App. 1013-1019 RV). Everyone
was to agree with his reinstatement (App. 1034ff RV). Photius
was also urged to break down the opposition prudently, and to
restore his opponents to their former dioceses and functions (App.
1016-1019, 1029-1930 RV).
If all the conditions were fulfilled the Pope would grant him
pardon, and restore him to intercommunion, returning to him
his dignity as bishop, and agreeing that he rule the Church of
Constantinople (App. 1037-1045 RV). The Pope wished to do
this because of the intervention of the Emperor in his case, and
for the sake of the peace (App. 1034, 1037 RY).

In this passage the Constantinopolitan version differs greatly

from the original. The condition of giving satisfaction and of ask-
ing for mercy became a request to proclaim before the synod God’s
mercy towards him, and to praise the help and protection Photius
had received from Rome (App. 993-1003 CV). He was to work for
unison and concord of all, making aneffort to convince his oppo-
nents with the argument that Rome approved. This approbation
by Rome was a strong argument in Photius’ endeavours to win
over his opponents, because they considered their recognition of
Photius as a betrayal of their allegiance to Rome. The help and
assistance of the Roman Church to those who had suffered un-

4. App. 156 = 1641 CY.

 104

justly was praised extensively (App. 1004ff CV). Photius was

always to keep it in mind and not forget it (App. 1014 CV). Photius
completely changed the meaning of the original letter, but he did
so in accordance with the Byzantine understanding of the facts 1.
With great insistence Photius made the Pope urge him to do every-
thing to win the support of all opposing bishops (App. 1016ff
CV), and to return to them their functions and dioceses (App. 1031-
1032 CV). This appeal was repeated once more, but now from an-
other angle: “Just as the Emperor interceded on your behalf, so
do we on their behalf, and we exhort you not to keep thém in bad
memory” (App. 1046ff CV, uvnomexyoo). “Then we can cele-
brate a feast of joy and common happiness” (App. 1056-1058 CV).
In this last sentence one can sense how much Photius longed for an
end to this question. For this reason he reformulated it so emphat-
ically, and used the authority of the Pope to strengthen his case,
and to persuade these bishops to join him. As we have seen in
the revised version of the letter to the Emperors,? Photius had
changed the demand for giving satisfaction and asking mercy
which had been Pope John’s condition for his recognition. It has
been suggested that the Roman letter referred to the Synod of
867, when Photius had condemned Pope Nicholas. For this mis-
take Photius was supposed to ask forgiveness %. It is difficult to
conclude this from the text of the papal letters. First of all, in
the letter to the Emperors the reason for asking mercy was con-
nected with the fact that Photius had assumed the patriarchal
throne without previously consulting Rome +. Photius had to
give satisfaction for this step, and to offer an explanation for
having acted in this way. The basic reason, however, was the
fact of Photius’ condemnation at a synod (869). From this sen-
tence he had to be released and thus he had to ask absolution.
This asking for mercy was considered normal (App. 994-995

4. The Latin translation of the Greek text (MANsI XVII 415 A) obscu-
res the meaning: ‘patrocinii autem quod praebere soles...’. This should read:
‘patrocinii autem quod tibi praebuit (Roma) secundum consuetudines...’ being
the translation of: ‘rij¢ 82 2 Erovug cor Bonfetacg..’.
2. See above p. 80ff.
3. DVORNIK 181; see also BURG, “Paus Johannes VIII en Constan-
tinopel’’, 28.
4. See above p. 78.
102

RV, ‘secundum consuetudinem’) in Roman eyes. Rome expec-

ted (‘consuetudo’) that someone who wanted to be absolved
from a censure should express his submission and ask for mercy.
This did not include, in the eyes of the Pope, a confession of being
wrong, as we noticed also in the cases of the patriarchs in the lLet-
ter to the Emperors}, some of whom certainly had not been
wrong. Giving satisfaction, asking for mercy, or asking absolu-
tion, apparently, did not necessarily imply forgiveness of sins, or
any moral misbehaviour. This, however, was not understood in
Constantinople. Photius read into this condition a confession of
guilt; he did not consider himself wrong, and therefore he changed
the papal condition to ‘proclaiming before the synod the help of
Rome in his restoration’. In this way he adapted the text to the
situation as it was understood in the East, and at the same time
he gave it a more acceptable wording, expressing what he thought
were the ideas of Pope John.

In this alteration Photius gave further proof that he had

a fair understanding of the different theological climate in East
and West. In the West they had not understood the true propor-
tions of the case, and for that reason Photius felt free to adapt what
they had written. Yet he respected this different climate and
showed great reverence for the first See of Christendom, at times
explicitly (App. 1002-1003 CV: ‘Whenever you asked something
from her, you received it’ and 1014 CV: ‘Do not forget her help’),
at other times implicitly by adapting the letter to an audience which
perhaps would not otherwise have understood it.
Promotion of laymen to the episcopacy
Pope John gave yet another condition for his recognition of
Photius: “No layman should be ordained to the episcopacy con-
trary to the canons’. This custom existing in Constantinople should
be discontinued (App. 1059ff RV). This had been the legal reason
for the deposition of Photius at the Synod of 869: he had been
ordained without the necessary intervals. Pope John referred
to this synod (App. 1078 RV). The dangers connected with the
lack of intervals were the main reason for the rejection of the cus-
tom. The Constantinopolitan version also shared this opinion

1. App. 417ff RV, and see above p. 84.

 103

and elaborated it further (App. 1059ff CV). The Greek text pre-
served the term laymen, 2x daixdv; this has to be understood in
the same sense as in the letter to the Emperors (App. 553ff
CV). Laymen was explained there as people with secular offices
secular magistrates, people who had assumed high functions in
political life.
The condition of the Roman version (App. 1059 RV ‘ita
tamen ut...°) sounded too authoritative to Byzantine ears and
was weakened to a polite request (App. 1059 CV: d&:otuev—we
would appreciate). Pope John. had quoted the Council of 869.
This reference makes clear that he did not consider this synod
annulled, although he had quashed the sentence of this synod
against Photius. For Photius however—and in general for the
Byzantine bishops—the withdrawal of his. condemnation at the
Synod of 869 had stripped this synod of all its value. Here we have
the basic reason for the alteration of the original text of this pas-
sage of the letter. Photius agreed with the content of Pope John’s
proposals; laymen should not be ordained in a hurry (App. 1062
CV: &8ed0v=crowdedly, all ordinations together). First the moral
attitude and virtue of the candidate should be investigated (App.
1067-1068 CV). Photius accepted this, and even agreed that Pope
John referred to a council—but not to the Council of 869. “An
invalid synod cannot have a valid canon’. However there was
another synod which spoke about investigation into the life of
episcopal candidates, namely the second canon of the Second
Council of Nicea in 7871, under Tarasius and Pope Hadrian I.
Thus Photius preserved the strength of the papal argument in
its reference to a council, but side-stepped the difficulties. He did
not have to say bluntly that Pope John was wrong in quoting
869. This adaptation clearly reflected the different Eastern and
Western thoughts on councils and their place within the Church.
The Diocese of Bulgaria
The original version of the letter dealt now with another
matter, the diocese of Bulgaria. Pope John formulated his request
as the price to be paid by Photius for his acknowledgement: “Just

4. Canon 2 of Nicea I (325) forbids the newly baptized to be ordained,

canon 3 of Laodicea (343) idem; Canon 2 of Nicea IT (787) says that the life
of a candidate for the episcopacy should be investigated.
104

as you wanted back your share, so we should again like to have

the diocese of Bulgaria’ (App. 1084ff RV). John VIII described
how Pope Nicholas had earned this territory by his apostolic activ-
ities, and how it had been Roman during the time of Pope Ha-
drian (App. 1087-1092 RV). Photius should do his best to see that
there would be no more ordinations there (App. 1094 RV ‘de
cetero’) and that the bishops and missionaries working there would
be recalled. At the end of his letter Pope John made sure that
he was well understood: if Photius did not follow this advice,
he would be subject to ecclesiastical censures (App. 1107ff RV);
a strange way of asking a favour!

In the adaptation of the letter to the Emperors, Photius had

been shown to be willing to meet Pope John’s request. It was
however, a question not for the Patriarch to decide, but for the
Emperor. For that reason he omitted this question in the Constan-
tinopolitan version of this letter. This again reflects a different
understanding of the Church in Western and Eastern thought.
The confidence of the East in the cvuowvia between ecclesiastical
and political power left this matter entirely to the Emperor. The
West was inclined to consider this primarily as a matter for the
Church. The controversy of the two swords in the Middle Ages
was to be a proof of this.
Rejection of the Synod of 869
The passage dealing with the annulment of the Synod of 869
is only present in the Constantinopolitan version. This synod was
considered null and void, and without any value (App. 1114-1120
CV). For Photius it was necessary to clarify the reference of Pope
John in the original letter to the ‘venerable’ Synod under Pope
Hadrian If (App. 1078 RV). Although the Constantinopolitan
version did not speak about this synod, the fact that the subject
arose in this place shows that Photius had in front of him the
original version. In the Constantinopolitan version the literary
connection was the association with the name of Constantinople
mentioned in App. 1081 CV. This city ‘reminded’ Pope John of
the synod held there in 869. In the alteration Photius presented
himself as a clever diplomat. He made some radical changes in
the papal text, knowing that these were not the ideas of Pope
John. By putting them into Pope John’s mouth, he left all the ini-
 105

tiative to the Pope and thus made the Pope acceptable in the
East. This was an act of respect. Thus ‘Pope John’ annulled,
condemned and rejected the Synod of 869 (App. 1116-1117 CV).
The strong expressions show how interested Photius was in the
issue, but also how much he wanted. the authority of Pope John
behind it.

_ The reasons given for this rejection by Pope John according

to the Constantinopolitan version call for further attention.
Apart from some other reasons—the letter says—the Synod of
869 is null because the Pope’s predecessor Pope Hadrian had not
subscribed to it (App. 1118-1020 CV). What were those other
reasons? Photius probably referred here to the fact that the Pope
had been misled by the false information. of Theognostus. We
find an allusion to this in the Acts of the Synod of 879 in the second
session. Cardinal Peter said that Popes Hadrian and Nicholas
“had never accepted what had been plotted against Photius” }.
Deusdedit and Ivo of Chartres also made similar remarks—in
much stronger language 7. The Constantinopolitan version of
the letter to the Emperors made Pope John say: “The Popes did
not accept the sentence against Photius” (App. 412-414 CV).
These are those ‘other reasons’. Photius added to this: “Pope Ha-
drian did not subscribe io it? (App. 1119-1120 CV: ody Sréyoadbev
zy ath). Of course, through his legates Pope Hadrian had signed
and accepted the decisions, but because of incorrect information,
Pope Hadrian could not really be blamed. Photius ‘translated’
this: He had not signed; after all he had not been present. Is that
perhaps the meaning of év adtyj? This explanation safeguarded
the authority of Pope John, and showed him respect. It could
convince the opponents of Photius that they should not be afraid
to disregard their signatures, but should adhere to Photius. After
all, even the Pope himself had not really given his approval in
869.
Final remarks
For other matters Pope John referred to the oral and written
instructions (Commonitorium) which he had given to Peter and

4. MANsI XVII 401 B.

2. VON GLANVELE, op. cit. 614; PL 161, 57; DVORNIK 186.
106
d strict
the other legates (App. 1121ff RV). The legates had receive
instructions (App. 1129-1130 RV “‘juxta censur am nostri Apos-
stance s
tolatus instructi’) but they were to be mindful of the circum
and act accordingly (App. 1131-1136 RV). This suggests that
they had a great deal of freedom and liberty to act on their own
initiative. If later they went too far, according to Pope John’s
opinion, he could only say, ‘so far had not been my intention’ !.
The letter in both versions stated explicitly that these other
questions (App. 1121) were the matters which Photius had men-
tioned in his letter to the Pope. The Constantinopolitan version
stressed that the Commonitorium was the result of a synodal
decision of the Roman Church, and not so much of the Pope alone
(App. 1424-1125 CV: névteg treypdtpapev). It had been handed
to Cardinal Peter, and then sent to the two legates who were al-
ready in Constantinople waiting (App. 1128-1131 CY). The ini-
tiative of the Roman legates received a slightly stronger emphasis
than had been the case in the original letter (App. 1136 CV: d:01-
xjnowo. =rule, decide).
This Constantinopolitan version ends with a cordial greet-
ing. The absence of these final greetings in the Roman version
must derive from the work of the registrar.

3. LETTER OF POPE JOHN VIII TO THE BISHOPS OF CON-

STANTINOPLE AND THE OTHER PATRIARCHATES (App. 1140ff)

Greetings
The title of the Roman version reflects the hand of the reg-
istrar. ‘Tribus’ (App. 1145 RV) probably did not appear in the
original text of the letter; perhaps it is an abbreviation for the
three names, and therefore mentions only the first one, the others
being known ?.
The original version of the letter of Pope John to the bishops
of the Patriarchate of Constantinople was extremely cool and
reserved. Pope John stated that he had received their letter in
which they had expressed their unity with Photius (is the lack
of title due to the registrar?) (App. 1453ff RV). The letter even
becomes offensive when Pope John writes that they should fol-
low the will of Christ, and not their own (App. 1158-1160 RY).

4. MGH Ep. VII 227 - 228.

2. CASPAR, art. cit. 109.
 107
The Constantinopolitan adaptation made the text much
friendlier. Pope John expressed his joy over the unity and har-
mony around Photius, .their most holy Patriarch (App. 1150ff
CV).

We find in this adaptation a striking similarity of expres-

sion (for instance: App. 1161-1163 RV and CV). This shows
once more with how much care the revision was made, adhering
as closely as possible to the original text. This careful adaptation
suggests also that both parties knew Latin and Greek!. The
authoritative term moderatio (App. 1164 RV) had to be weakened
to the more acceptable term commiseratio (App. 1163: OUELTEOL-
Qcix). The influence of Rome was preserved but a possible refer-
ence to authority was eliminated. ite |
In his original text Pope John quoted the text of the Epistle
of St. Paul to the Corinthians (App. 1176-1177 RV=2 Cor 13:11,
according to the Vulgate). This was only partly retained (App.
1176-1177 CV), and Photius added another quotation (App.
1174 CV=Phil. 2:15) to strengthen the papal admonition to the
unwilling bishops with another argument from Holy Scriptures.

Absolution and acceptance of Photius

This passage of the letter offers an excellent example of the
different understanding about the position of the Roman Church
in East and West, and at the same time shows how deep was
Photius’ insight into these two ways of thinking. According to
the Roman version Pope John concluded with apparent joy that
the request of the Constantinopolitan bishops to have Photius
recognized by the authority of St. Peter was a proof that they
had a good understanding of the command of Christ to the first pas-
tor to confirm his brothers (App. 1178ff RV). Thus Photius be-
came patriarch on the recognition of Pope John—a very Roman
point of view. The Constantinopolitan version kept as far as pos-
sible the same terminology, but the meaning was totally altered.
As a favour, the bishops asked Pope John to declare in the name

1. M. Juaie, “Origine de la controverse sur Paddition du Filioque au

Symbole” in Reeue des Sciences Phil. et Théol. 28(1939) 377 says that Pho-
tius did not know Latin.
108

of Peter that he also accepted Photius (App. 1187 CV: ovvanode-

Zcéue0x). The Pope was willing to do so, because he kept in mind
what Christ had told the first pastor: “confirm your brothers”
(App. 1193-1196 CV). The conviction of Pope John that he had a
prerogative of primacy was not denied, but was given only as
the opinion of Pope John and was no longer represented as the
feeling of the Constantinopolitan bishops. The revision could
therefore preserve the same reasoning, but it became that of Pope
John, rather than of the Constantinopolitan bishops.
This passage did not undergo many further changes. From
time to time an expression was formulated with greater emphasis
than in the original letter: The quotations from the Scripture were
called divine utterances (App. 1198 CV). The Pope was said to
have full authority (App. 1198-1199 CV: éovotav Eyovtec evduva-
uouuévyy), and it was said that the Roman protection was praised
and celebrated ‘to the ends of the earth’ (App. 1203-1204 CV).
Pope John compared the case of Photius with that of Patriarch
Tarasius who had been elected patriarch and had been consecrated
without keeping the necessary intervals of ordination. Pope John
quoted a section of the letter on this issue of his predecessor,
Hadrian I, to the Emperor Constantine and Empress Irene (App.
1213-1281 RV) 1. The revised version kept this example of Photius’
uncle with approximately the same terminology, but no longer asa
quotation from Pope Hadrian 1 ?. Its function in the argument
was not altered (App. 1213ff RV and CV), but the passage was
expanded. The example served a double purpose. It showed the
help which Popes had given in the past, and the example
Pope John was following, but the case of Patriarch Tarasius had
its unfortunate side too, just like the case of Photius. Tarasius had
become patriarch without the necessary intervals (App. 1226ff RV).
This was contrary to the holy canons (App. 1232 RV); our canons
as the Constantinopolitan version called them (App. 1229-1230 CY).

In his letter, Pope Hadrian had referred to the orthodoxy

of Tarasius (App. 1218-1219 RV). That Pope John quoted this

1. MANSI XIT 1056ff.

2. Although the Latin term apocalligus was taken over, it was not
understood, as is shown by the Greek expression &xd xadtyov (App. 1228
CV).
 109

part of the letter of his predecessor may be considered a sign of

his favourable attitude towards Photius, and shows that Pope John
did not question Photius’ orthodoxy. The revised version formu-
lated more accurately the reference to dogmas and synods-in the
declaration of Tarasius’ Synodicon.. Not only the dogmas of the
councils, but also the six Ecumenical Councils themselves are con-
sidered important (App. 1222-1224 RV and CY). This is an expres-
sion of Photius’ scrupulous zeal for orthodoxy, and stresses once
more the importance of the synods as such in the ecclesiological un-
derstanding of the. East. In the revised version Photius presented
quite faithfully the papal arguments against the promotion of lay-
men to the episcopacy. The case of Tarasius had been a special
one, Pope Hadrian, and now Pope John, said, because of Tarasius’
defence of the icons; therefore the Pope had been able to recognize
him and make an exception to the rule (App. 1272-1281 CV).
This defence of the icons was a proof of his orthodoxy. Thus Pho-
tius clarified the Pope’s saying. This also held with the case of
Photius. It was to be expected that the Constantinopolitan version
would add this (App. 1281-1284 CV). Pope John recognized Pho-
tius, thus making another exception. Photius made this explicit;
and justifiably. He was happy to be compared to his great uncle,
the hero of the Council against Iconoclasm of 787. Pope John would
not have given the example of Tarasius if Photius’ case had not
been similar. Photius agreed that it should not become a custom;
the old ruling should stay in force (App. 1290-1296 CV, but azo
zo} maosvroc!). There is a slight difference from the original text
which stressed not so much the old discipline itself, but the author-
ity of the Pope, who commanded that the traditions of the fa-
thers be kept (App. 1299 RV ‘constringimus’).

Pope John spoke in his text about neophytes (App. 1296

RV), people who just had been baptised; they should not become
bishops!. It is possible that Pope John used this term here
figuratively of Photius. However, Photius did not agree with
this and in fact corrected the text: “‘...in order that some people
should not hurry suddenly to the highest dignity” (App. 1296 CV).

1. Canon 80 of the Canons of the Apostles, and canon 2 of the Council

of Nicea I (325), ef. A. AAIBIZATOY, Oi iegoi xavdvec .. ., “AOFva. 1949. BURG,
art. cit. 24 says that Photius was recently baptized.
110

Further conditions for Photius’ acceptance

Pope John enumerated a few more conditions which he want-
ed fulfilled for his recognition of Photius (App. 1300 RV: ‘ed Sb039)i
The first one was that they should return to Roman juris-
diction the diocese of Bulgaria (App. 1300-1307 RV). The bishops
of Constantinople were held responsible for the ordinations there
(App. 1306 RV). The Pope had never called Photius directly res-
ponsible, but when speaking in general to all bishops and clergy of
the patriarchate, he could say this. Someone, after all, had to be
responsible. The Constantinopolitan version weakened this condi-
tion to a request without any mention of ordinations. However,
this diocese is described as belonging to the missionary activity
of the Roman Church (App. 1298-1299 CV). This shows the wil-
lingness of Photius to meet this request of the Pope.
The next passage speaks of the bishops who were in disagree-
ment or dispute with Photius, or who had even been removed (App.
1310ff RV). The Constantinopolitan clergy should try to effect a
reconciliation with them. With other pious works, they should
atone for the offence committed in this respect (App. 1318 RV:
in hac parte), against God and the sacred canons. Was this
a general reminder of their part in the troubles which had caused
the schism within the Church, or was it perhaps a direct allusion
to 867? This last possibility seems unlikely because the letters of
Pope John do not contain any reference to this Synod of 867. Prob-
ably it was only a general reminder, without being too concrete,
so as not to offend anybody. At the same time it was an expression
of the opinion of Pope John, who considered them responsible for
the troubles in the Church of Constantinople. The Constantino-
politan version omitted these unfriendly words and changed this
passage. Photius as their patriarch was not a concession to be
granted by Rome (App. 1323 - 1324 RV), but a fact: Photius was
their patriarch and all supported him vigorously (App. 1320-
1321 CV). Rome’s initiative was weakened. There was no longer
any question of atonement. Their good works —the terms are
preserved—would make them blameless in the eyes of God (App.
1314 =41317) CV).
According to the original version, Photius would become
patriarch after having asked for mercy before a synod (App. 1324
ff RV). This allowed Pope John too much initiative: Photius was
already patriarch. The adapted version, therefore, spoke only
 ad

of acceptance (App. 1328 CV), and just as in the adaptation of

the other letters the condition of asking mercy was eliminated.
Photius would proclaim before the synod the goodwill and favour-
able attitude of the Roman Church towards him (App. 1322-1325
CV). This was meant to be a Byzantine translation of the Roman
idea, but it changed its meaning. Pope John explained that he was
following the exampleof his predecessors, and he thought espe-
cially of the case of Photinus who had been restored to his see by
Pope Innocent I. at the request of the other bishops (App. 1334
RV). Pope John again quoted a letter of one of his predecessors,
Innocent I, who had written to the bishops of Macedonia1. Pope
John saw a similarity in the case of Photius, not least because
of the name. The Constantinopolitan version eliminated this name.
Why? Photinus was a bishop of Sirmium in the fourth century, who
had been condemned at various synods because of heretical teach-
ing ?. Photius. who was so concerned about his orthodoxy, certainly
did not wish to be compared to a heretic! He therefore, referred
to many bishops who had received back their sees through the
influence of Rome (App. 1361ff CV). He kept the name of Pope
Innocent and added Gelasius (from the letter to the Emperors, and
to the Ignatians) who had restored Saint John Chrysostom, one
of the bishops who had unjustly lost his see, or had been removed
(App. 1362; see also App. 172ff, 183ff, CV, 1599). The request of
the bishops of Constantinople to recognize Photius was called
good and useful. Who, after such a recommendation, could still be
so proud as to refuse Photius (App. 1368ff CV)?
The example of Photinus is again a proof that Pope John
considered the case of Photius to be purely disciplinary. He restored
Photius, but did not question his orthodoxy. The comparison with
the heretic Photinus only concerned the disciplinary question;
Photius’ innocence or guilt did not arise.
Final remarks
According to the original version of the letter, Pope John
ended with a quotation from his predecessor, Innocent. Like In-
nocent he was in agreement with the Greek bishops: “To whom
you extend your hand, I will extend mine with you; and to

Ie PLL 6275262:
2. HEFELE - LECLERCQ, op. cil. 1/2, 634f.
412
spirit
whom I extend my hand, extend yours also”. This was the
of benevolence and unity of which St. Paul spoke (App. 14391 ff=
T.Gor 440):
The absence of greetings in the Roman version was, as in
the other letters, a result of the registration.
Before the Constantinopolitan version ended with the same
exhortation (App. 1392 CV), it elaborated a little further the question
of Photius’ acceptance, in order to urge his opponents to join him
(App. 1373ff CV). Schisms should be avoided and no one should
cause new problems: ‘Whoever does not accept Photius will not
be in communion with Pope John” (App. 1388 - 1390 CV). This
recension of the papal letter finished with the Pauline doxology
which all Byzantine bishops knew from the Liturgy: “In one Spi-
rit and one heart they will glorify the ever honourable name of the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” (App. 1399 - 1403 CY).

4. THE COMMONITORIUM (App. 1410ff)

The commonitorium is only preserved in the version which
was read to the Fathers in the third session of the Synod of
879 - 880. We can assume that this text also was an adaptation
of a Roman version which has been lost. Why this Roman text
has not come down to us will probably never be explained with
absolute satisfaction. Some think that the original manuscript
was removed from the Vatican Archives because of its tenth chap-
ter, where Pope John seemed to abolish the sentence of the Council
of 869. It is also possible that no registration was ever made.
This instruction—certainly according to its first three chap-
ters—is an elaboration of an older formula, namely the Indiculus
which Pope Hormisdas in 515 sent to Ennodius and Fortunatus ?.
Another similarity can be discovered in the commonitorium which
Pope John VIII gave to Paul of Ancona—also one of the legates
at the synod of 879—on his mission to Louis the German in 873 ?.
The commonitorium calls to mind also the Commonitorium which

RATS Gs tae
2. MGH Ep. VII 282 - 285; also in this commonitorium the directives
are not always addressed to the legates. Chapter I addresses the king, and
IV and V are clearly directed to the legates. There is an obvious similarity be-
tween the two commonitoria.
 113
Pope Stephen V sent to Moravia in 885 to solve certain questions
which had arisen after the death of St. Methodius 1.

Chapter I
The legates were to go first to the Emperor who would provide
them with lodging (App. 1415 - 1418). This reflected the structure
of the Christian society of the time. The Emperor came first.
The Pope followed this structure, as he was himself a member of
Byzantine society. Some manuscripts have in App. 1423 6 mvev-
Yatixog busy marye (your spiritual father); the reading judy (our)
seems to be more logical, although arguments for the other
reading can also be found 2.
Unity and peace within the Church were subjects very dear
to Pope John (App. 1426). hes
It is very difficult to decide where the text has been altered
in this chapter. Pope John could have said this without any
reservation.

Chapter IT
The legates received careful instructions on how to approach
the Emperor, and what to say to him (App. 1430ff).
The reason for their coming was obvious: the unity of the
Church, which was also to be found in the letters which they
brought with them (App. 1435 - 1437). Ecclesiastical peace (App.
1436) can mean peace within the Church of Constantinople, or
in the Church in general. Rome had a tendency to focus more on
the universal Church. The answer which the legates were to give
(App. 1434) suggests that the letters were not guidelines to the
legates. It is even possible that they did not know the exact
content of these letters. The Pope had instructed them orally,
and had given this set of instructions, the commonitorium. Probably
there was no pre-existing plan to read this commonitorium
to the Fathers of the synod. The decisions of Pope John regarding
Photius were mentioned in the commonitorium only inasmuch

14. MGH Ep. VII 352f.

2. HERGENROETHER, op. cit. I] 390 ad 68; cf. the letter of Pope John
to the Emperors, App. 480 - 481 CV and 689 - 690 RV.
114

as the execution of these decisions depended on the legates. This

would explain the vagueness of the commonitorium with regard to
these decisions. This was not then the result of an adaptation by
Photius.
In Tonos yap%¢ App. 1433 - 1437 is considered chapter III,
and chapter III and IV according to the edition of Mansi to-
gether form chapter IV.

Chapter III
The next day the legates were to visit Photius, “greeting him
with a kiss as is fitting” (App. 1440). The legates thus had to pre-
pare their greetings. Pope John wanted to consider Photius as his
brother and concelebrant (App. 1443). This is stronger than greet-
ing him only as a brother. It is terminology treasured even today
in the correspondence of Orthodox bishops 1. We also find this
form of expression frequently in the letters of Pope John. Even
if Photius had changed the formulation, he preserved the Roman
point of view, namely the future aspect: OéAe. yey, “wants to have
you’ as a brother and concelebrant.
In the edition of Ténoc yao%o App. 1439 - 1453 form together
one, chapter.

Chapter IV
The beginning of the fourth chapter is certainly addressed to
the Fathers of the synod, and not to the legates. The order (xedev-
ouev) of App. 1448-1450, however, either is addressed to the bishops
of the synod, or can be understood as an instruction to the le-
gates 2 to cause Photius to appear before a synod in their pre-
sence. The whole church of Constantinople was then to accept him
according to the decisions laid down in the letters of Pope John.
The exhortation of App. 1451 - 1453 can be explained as directed
to the legates, or to the bishops.
This chapter is clearly a revision of a former Roman version
of the commonitorium which contained an order to the legates

1. E.g. Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarkhii (1970) n. 1, 5; see also 3-4;

another example in the letter of patriarch Pimen of Moscow to Athenago-
ras I of Constantinople, in Jstina 17(1972) 481.
2. By placing a full stop after Suév, before xedresouev as MANSI XVII
469 A.
 145

to have Photius appear before the synod (cf. App. 1448- 1450).
Then, if he had asked for mercy and had received absolution from
the censure of 869, the Roman legates would declare him accepted
by the Roman Church. This was changed into an exhortation to
the bishops to accept Photius, and a statement that Photius would
welcome the help which he had received from the Roman Church,
and express his gratitude for this (App. 1452 - 1453). In the adap-
tation, however, it was forgotten that the commonitorium was
not addressed to the bishops, but contained private instructions
for the legates.

Chapter V
At the end of their audience with Photius the legates were
to exhort him to do everything to win the support and confidence
of thosé bishops and others who were reluctant to accept him as
their Patriarch (App. 1455: évaotévtes, when they stand up to go).
The direct speech of the second person singular changes in
App. 1461 to the third person singular. Photius is no longer being
addressed. Was this perhaps an addition by the hand of Photius him-
self? We know from other instances how interested he was in
winning the support of his opponents. Was it on the other hand
simply intended to make explicit the supposed action of the Roman
legates, as in the next chapter where the action of the legates is
also worded in indirect speech (App. 1474 - 1476)?
Some of Photius’ opponents had been sent into exile, others
probably had gone of their own free will. On their return there
would be cases of two bishops in the same see. To settle this problem
Pope John decided that the one consecrated earlier had the right
to reassume his function as bishop (App. 1465 - 1468). In other
words the Ignatian bishops of the first Ignatian patriarchate would
be restored to their sees. The Ignatian bishops of the second Igna-
tian patriarchate would have to yield to the Photian bishops and
would receive a pension?. The Roman version of the letter to
the Emperors (App. 744- 745RY) said that the Ignatian bishops
should be restored to their former sees upon their return to com-

4. DvVORNIK 178. Cardinal Peter understood it in this way during the

sessions of the synod, cf. MANsI XVII 417.
116

munion with Photius. The Constantinopolitan version (App. 744

- 745CV) had formulated this request more in keeping with the text
of the commonitorium. It spoke of the dignity and function of the
bishops.The solution given in the commonitorium reflects a sugges-
tion made by Pope John to solve the problems that would arise
if two bishops should claim the same see. This does not imply that
the second patriarchate of Ignatius—and therefore his ordinations
—were invalid. It was simply a practical solution.
It is interesting to notice that the typically Roman term we
order (xedkevouey), has been preserved in a revision of the original
text of the commonitorium, especially if it is taken into account
that the letters in the Constantinopolitan version have consistent-
ly weakened such terminology.

Chapter VI
This chapter was clearly addressed to the legates. It describes
how they should behave during the first session of the synod. They
should read the letters, and ask the Fathers if they would accept the
content of these letters (App. 1476-1477). There then followed a strong
statement on the papal care for all Churches. It is noteworthy that
this statement has been preserved in a version which under-
went alterations by Photius. To the Byzantine bishops, however,
it could sound as if it concerned the actual pastoral care of this
particular Pope, John VIII. It said nothing about jurisdic-
tion, or whether the Pope had a special right to exercise such care.
We have seen that Photius was well aware of the ambiguity of
such terminology in East and West.
As in the letter of Pope John to the bishops of Constantino-
ple—according to the Photian adapted version— the liturgical
doxology of St. Paul follows 1.
This passage ends with the reaction of the synod while listen-
ing to the reading of this commonitorium (App. 1486 - 1488).

Chapter VII
This chapter repeats the subject of chapter V but now from
a negative point of view. If these bishops who did not want to be

4. App. 1398
- 1403 CV.
 417

united, persisted in their refusal, the legates should excommuni-

cate them (App. 1494 - 1496, cf. also App. 785ff RV). It shows
Photius’ respect for the Roman legates that he retained this
command which could be understood as interference by one Church
in the affairs of another. Photius used more than once the moral
authority of the Roman Church to convince his opponents. On
the other hand, it is also possible that the legates simply refused
to alter this. During the synod they constantly were aware of what
their mission was, and who was their master.
In the fifth session of the synod dealing with the case of Me-
trophanes, the legates referred to the second and third admoni-
tion, as in this chapter of the commonitorium (App. 1493) 1.

Chapter VIII
While chapter VII was clearly formulated as a guideline for
the action of the legates, this chapter contains a direct decision of
Pope John. It is possible that the original version of the commoni-
torium gave the legates an order to convey the papal decision
to the Fathers of the synod, perhaps in a formula as in the
following two chapters: ““We want you in front of the synod to
ask, to declare...”
This chapter fully expresses the feelings of Pope John, as they
are known from the original versions of his letters. The expression
amo xoournod a&Eraduatoc however, is more accurate, as we have seen
in the Constantinopolitan version of the letters (cf. App. 559
-560
CV and 1061 CV).

Chapter 1X
Chapter IX addresses the legates directly. As we have seen in the
papal letters, Photius was quite willing to meet Pope John’s requests
where the Diocese of Bulgaria was concerned. The strict command
has accordingly been preserved here (App. 1505 - 1506).
That there was a special chapter on this Bulgarian question
shows Pope John’s preoccupation with this subject following the
policy of his predecessors. At the same time it confirms the
argument that the commonitorium was changed only when ab-
solutely necessary.

4. MANSI XVII 497 A.

118

Chapter X
For many scholars this chapter has been a reason for disregar-
ding the commonitorium altogether’. The papal letters in their
original version bore a totally different meaning.
This chapter was also not intended for the legates, or at any
rate, was not formulated as a guideline; it is rather the decision of
Pope John formulated with a public announcement in view (App.
1510 évdrtov tH¢ evSyuodons cvvddov, with the synod in session).
The text made two announcements:
a) The synod of 869 is rejected from now on (App. 1514: ano
tod mapdvtoc). This wording safeguarded the (Roman) opinion that
the synod had originally been valid. As far as the future was
concerned, however, it had ceased to have any significance. This
wording of the text did not suggest that the predecessors of
Pope John had been wrong.
b) This synod will not be numbered among the other Holy
Synods.
These two points show how much care had been taken to try
to formulate this delicate matter, so as to safeguard both the
Roman and the Byzantine points of view.
In a), the attempt was made to express the Roman _ point
of view, leaving open the question of whether the Council of
869 had been right or wrong. However, the question of the ‘re-
Jection of the synod’ already betrays the Byzantine view. It would
be more Roman to say that the sentence of the Synod of 869
against Photius is to be rejected from now on, because that was
Pope John’s interpretation, as it is known from the letters in their
original versions. Compare what he wrote in his letter to the Emperors:
... decernimus ad veniam pertinere, quod nuper de ipso Fotio... gestum
constat fuisse (App. 15ff RV).
The ‘ad veniam pertinere’ which was essential to the Roman under-
standing of the facts, becomes ‘rejected, null and void’ (App. 1514-
1515) as soon as it is formulated in Byzantine terms. In b), the
Eastern valuation of a synod is given. The Synod of 869 would
not figure in the series of sacred synods. It has been annulled, its
ever having taken place is denied, and not to be thought of. In a
certain sense there is a contradiction between a) and b), but this

1. DVORNIK 175; HERGENROETHER, op. cit. II 390 ad 67.

 a9
is the result of the two ways of interpreting the réle of synods
in the Church. In the West a synod was considered as a meeting to
take important decisions, while in the East it was thought of as
more existentially the crystallization of what the Church is itself.
Its numbering among the other synods was therefore an important
issue. Was the Church present as such at the Synod of 869 or not?
This was the crucial question, to which East and West gave different
answers. Whether the two points of view really contradict each
other will be the subject of our reflection }.
The text of the commonitorium—as published in the Acts—sug-
gests that there was an interval after chapter X. Perhaps the reading
pleased the Fathers so much, that they could not abstain from
interrupting the reading with their comments 2. Perhaps the
Acts of 869 which were destroyed during this synod? were
destroyed at this point. This would explain the interval even
better.
The dialogue which interrupted the reading of the commo-
nitorium (App. 1516ff) gives a fine example of the views about
synods prevalent among the Greek fathers 4.

Chapter XT
This chapter contained some last advice to the legates. They
should be honest, fair and without fear (App. 1535ff). They should
remember that they were taking the place of the Pope and act
with his authority on behalf of peace in the Church (App. 1538
- 1539). They should perform their mission so that the Pope could
be content and thankful (App. 1540 - 1542). This exhortation—in
the line of the Pope’s letter to the legates > — encouraged them
to assess the situation and to act with prudence and wisdom: it is
a final expression of the Pope’s great trust in his legates.

In conclusion it must be said that the commonitorium has

been reworded more emphatically and pointedly, expressing what

1. See also DVORNIK 309ff.

2. Mansi XVII 472 B, App. 1516-1533.
3. In his signature the Emperor spoke about the destruction (‘aoBoAt?
=destruction, throwing away) of all writings against Photius, cf. Mansi
XVII 517 D.
4. MGH Ep. VII 188-190; Dvornik 179-180.
120

Byzantine thinking interpreted as what Pope John wanted to say.

Chapter IV and X have been substantially altered, although
Photius intended only to reword them so as to accord the with By-
zantine thinking 1. Typically Roman expressions have often been
preserved: e.g. Oéouev, “we want’ (App. 1504, 1510) or the refe-
rence to Photius as the ‘aforementioned one’, zpo0gonSevtx (App.
1471, 1505, 1512). The alteration of the commonitorium may
not be the work of Photius, but of the Roman legates trying to
re-express their instructions to accord with the situation in Con-
stantinople, as they now saw it, and to agree with the amended
versions of the papal letters. This would explain the inconsis-
tency of the changes in the commonitorium, and why so many
Roman expressions have been preserved.

5. THE LETTER TO THE IGNATIANS

The letter which Pope John sent to the Ignatian partisans

who were hesitating to accept Photius, was not read to the synod.
Of this letter we possess no revised version, but only the text ac-
cording to the Register of Pope John VIII ?.
This letter mentioned a few of the Ignatian opponents of
Photius by name; the three patricians John, Leo and Paul, and
the leaders of the Ignatian clergy, the Metropolitans Stylanos
of Neocaesarea, John of Silaeon and Metrophanes of Smyrna. They
had also been present at the Synod of 869%. Two patricians
appeared in the fourth session of the Synod of 879 - 880 and asked
to be accepted +. Metrophanes was invited several times to give
up his opposition and upon his refusal was excommunicated °.
The letter starts with a strong statement about the universal
care for all Churches of the Church of Rome (App. 1548 - 1552).
The Pope then expressed his sorrow that Photius’ opponents
refused to return to the unity of the Church, and he harshly con-
demned this attitude (App. 1552 - 1558). Often referring to the

1. Photius’ letter after the synod suggests this, cf. the answer of Pope
John, MGH Ep. VII 227-228.
2. MGH Ep. VII 186-187.
3. The patricians Johannes, Leo and Paul, and also the bishop John
of Silaeon are mentioned in the Acts of 869, cf. Manst XVI 18.
4. Mansr XVII 485 C.
5. Ibid. 496 D.
 121
New Testament, the Pope showed how unacceptable this attitude
was, because it tore the one garment of Christ to pieces (App.
1558 - 1575). “How can we share the peace of Christ with you, if
we live in such an attitude of hatred?” (App. 1578 - 1580).
“How can priests think of celebrating the Eucharist, if they are not
filled with charity (App. 1584 - 1582)?” For all these reasons the
Pope ordered (App. 1587) the Ignatian clergy and laity to be united
with the Church and to accept Photius (App. 1586 - 1590). The
Pope told them not to look back to their signature (App. 1591 -
1593, the Libellus of 869), because that had been annulled. By
the merey of the Pope, the sentence against Photius had been
quashed and thus the subject of the Libellus had been revoked ?.
Pope John referred to Pope Gelasius (App. 1596), which he
had also done in his letter to the Emperors 2, while in the letter
to the Bishops of Constantinople this reference only appeared in
the Constantinopolitan version 3. Probably Photius took it
from the letters of Pope John to the Emperors, and to the
Ignatians, and added it to the letter to the Bishops of Constan-
tinople because it served his arguments so well in proving that
the Synod of 869 had lost its value.

Why was this letter not read to the bishops during the Synod
of 879 - 880? It is most likely that the people involved had read
the letter. When the patricians in the fourth session asked to be
admitted to the unity of the Church, they did this because—as
they witnessed themselves—they were convinced that Pope John
accepted Photius +. This seems to imply that they knew the con-
tents of this letter to them. Moreover Metrophanes was approached
on the grounds of a mandate of the legates”, referring to the commo-
nitorium, and to this letter. During the synod only two patricians
asked to be admitted. Does this mean that the third one to whom
the letter had been directed had died in the meantime? Perhaps

1. Dvornik 176 considers it evident that Pope John referred to

the Acts of 869. However, because of the mention of the signatures it is more
the Libellus Satisfactionis which is meant. It is therefore a direct reference
to the condemnation of Photius. ;
2. App. 183 RV.
3. Appa i337 Gy:
4. Mansi XVII 485 C.
5. Ibid; 497 A.
122

that is the reason why no names were mentioned in the fourth

session. Of the Metropolitans we know that Stylianos remained
a strong opponent. Was he not present in Constantinople? The
synod does not mention him. Whatever may be the case, it seems
certain that Photius did not want to estrange his opponents, however
many there were, unnecessarily. We have seen in the adaptation of
the letters that Photius.made very careful use of the authority
of Pope John to win their sympathy. He sincerely wanted the
restoration of unity in his Church.
All the subjects mentioned in the letter had already been
dealt with in the adaptation of the other letters, such as for in-
stance the reference to Pope Gelasius. Thus Photius—in agreement
with the Roman legates—accordingly omitted the letter because
there was no special need to read it.
 CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS OF THE ACTS?

1. GENERAL ATMOSPHERE OF SYNOD OF 879-880

When the Acts of the Photian Synod of 879 - 880, are read
the first impression cannot be other than disappointment. What
happened? Nothing! There were only seven short meetings, prob-
ably no longer than a few hours each. There is no mention of
any intervals. The letters of the various legates were read, anda few
short discussions were held with the meagre result of three canons.
Nevertheless, if we take a closer look, this is precisely the impor-
tance of this synod. Nothing happened, because nothing could
happen. There was no question of reinstatement or restoration.
Photius was Patriarch; everybody agreed and rejoiced in this.
As for Photius’ reinstatement, this synod came too late. The im-
portance of this synod does not lie in facts, or in events but in the
synod itself, in the very fact of its taking place and in the at-
mosphere which prevailed. The attitude and mentality of the
participants form the interesting elements of this synod. They
are worthy of analysis and description.
The atmosphere was tense; a feeling of uneasiness and im-
patience pervaded the meeting. The bishops of Constantinople
apparently considered the discussion about Photius’ re-installation
superfluous; the declarations of the Oriental Patriarchs, and also
of Rome were felt to be unnecessary. Unity already existed and
accordingly was no longer a proper subject for a synod. The
Synod was only worthwile as an expression of the unity that had
been achieved.
We see now that you have arrived, and the legates of our spiritual father
the most holy Pope John, and those who come from the East (the legates
of the Oriental Patriarchs) as expression of your agreement with our
4

4. Manst XVII 373-524. If necessary we refer to the edition of Dosi-

theus, Patriarch of Jerusalem: Téjoc yagas, év b meguéyovta ai énvotodal Pa-
ttov, Jassy (Rimnik), 1705, 33-102.
124
ics (the Icono-
harmony, and to make an end to all errors of the schismat
clasts) in a unanimo us verdict ’.

Procopius the Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia thus

expresses his joy over the unity that had been achieved to Peter,
the Cardinal Priest and new legate from Rome. Harmony existed as
a fact, even without the interference of the Oriental Patriarchs and
Rome. This was no longer a subject of contention. On the section of
the commonitorium concerning the question of the refusal of
some to accept Photius (Chapter VII), the synod commented:
This decision has the placet of all of us, and you (Rome) judged rightly.
However, as we already have said many times, there are only a few .
(who do not accept Photius), and they are ready, as you have heard,
to throw themselves at the feet of the most holy Patriarch Photius,
and to beg for the penance of those who have sinned®.

When in the fourth session the letters which Basil, Metro-

politan of Martyropolis, had brought from the Patriarchs of An-
tioch and Jerusalem were read, the synod expressed its joy that
the Oriental Patriarchs also supported Photius. They had always
been convinced of their adherence, they said. Gregory, Archbishop
of Ephesus, on the other hand said: ‘We do not need letters to accept
your (Photius’) pontificate” 3. This shows how jealously Constan-
tinople vindicated its right to take its own decisions about its Patri-
arch without interference from outside. This feeling of tension
becomes especially obvious in relation to the legates of Rome. A
few examples will illustrate this. When Cardinal Peter explained
his position during the first session, he said:
We take here today the place of the most holy and ecumenical Pope,
and we tell you: if there is anyone among you who looks for trouble, or
wants to provoke a scandal, by dividing the Church of God, let him then
leave this meeting, and give the reason for his divisive action.

The synod answered—and one can feel the restrained

teraper—:
In this tremendous multitude of people you see here, there is no one who
broods on guile or looks for contention. We all accept Photius as our
most holy Patriarch ¢.

. Mansi XVII 388 D.

» Tbid.492 De
. Ibid. 484 B.
mam. Ibid. 392-393.
woOnN
 425

After the remark of Peter, that the most holy Pope wanted
the whole Church to be united and to become one flock with one
shepherd, John, Metropolitan of Heraclea, jumped up immediately:
“...1t has already become one flock before hand, and we have
one pastor, Photius’ !. Peter did not answer at that moment,
but towards the end of the session he simply stated once again
that it was Pope John who sent them (the legates) to eliminate
the scandals “‘so that there may be one flock and one shepherd” ?.
Apparently he took revenge.
At the beginning of the second session the letter of Pope John
to the Emperors was read. After this a discussion developed be-
tween Cardinal Peter and Procopius, the bishop of Caesarea. ‘‘Pho-
tius was already accepted before the arrival of the Roman legates,
as we have said often”, Procopius sayd, “‘and before any admoni-
tion of Pope John’. A little naively Elias, legate of Jerusalem,
expressed his joy that everybody agreed with Jerusalem. Cardinal
Peter simply restated what he had said before, that Pope John had
sent the legates for this reason: to confirm unity and peace. Pro-
copius repeated his point of view; Peter left it at that, and returned
to the agenda 3.
When the question of Photius’ second elevation to the patri-
archal throne was brought to the floor, a feeling of annoyance
became evident among the Greek Fathers.
The three oriental Patriarchs always accepted him as Patriarch. The
bishops and priests of Constantinople accepted him with a few excep-
tions. What then prevented him from coming back? *

It was true that Photius had returned at the instigation of the

Emperor, the synod admitted, but only with the consensus and at
the invitation of the whole Church of Constantinople. This led
Peter to the question “So he ascended by tyrannical force?” This
insinuation apparently hurt Byzantine feeling. They retorted:
“There is a great difference between tyrannical force, and desire.
Tyranny certainly does not create desire” *. Peter was a di-

Ibid. 381 HE-384 A.

Ibid. 389 B.
Ibid. 408 D, 409 D.
Ibid. 410 E.
ON Ibid.
or 421 A.
126

plomat; he felt that the situation was becoming unpleasant. He

pretended not to have heard this comment, and said only: “Blessed
be God...’ which in modern, more secular language could be
translated as ‘fine’, or ‘all right’.
After the report of Photius on the circumstances of his resto-
ration to the patriarchal throne, the synod expressed its agreement
in these words: “It is really beyond expectation that God has
restored the Patriarch” 1. This sounded too general to the ears
of Cardinal Peter. He stated emphatically that in the past Popes
had frequently restored patriarchs to their sees. The synod
understood what Peter wanted to say; they weakened his state-
ment a little and said: ‘Yes, the Pope is a true follower of Christ,
when he disregards past discord and reaccepts as friends those
who held contrary opinion” *. This answer said nothing about
the restoration of Photius, nor about the Pope’s involvement and
influence, but on the other hand it did not deny this. It is one of
the many ambiguities of this synod.
By being courteous, the bishops showed their respect for the
legates of Rome, but at the same time they were very determined
to defend their own rights. At the end of the second session, the
Roman legates said: “Thanks be to God, and to the Emperor, and
to our lord, the most holy and ecumenical Pope John. Through
them the Church of God has received peace and unity”. The Synod
answered: ‘To God we must give thanks’’*. At the third session
—after the reading of the letter of Pope John to the bishops of Con-
stantinople—the legated asked: “Does Your Holiness accept this
letter, and do you (the Fathers of the synod) accept communion
and unity with the holy Patriarch?” The answer spoke for itself:
“Not only once, nor twice, but often—even before this letter—we
have said that. we are united with our most holy Patriarch Pho-
tius” 4. Even a very superficial reading of the Acts justified this
statement, which they had repeated so often. Peter was not em-
barrassed by this answer, and simply repeated the question. Then
the Synod gave a vague answer: “As far as it is to the honour of
God... we accept” °.
. Ibid. 425 D.
. Tbid.
noe 425 EH.
. Ibid. 449 B.
. Ibid. 456 B.
. Ibid.
oR 456 C.
 427

More texts can be quoted and the analysis will give more
examples. Two points of view came face to face at this synod. The
Western mentality, represented by the Roman legates, and the
mentality of the Eastern Fathers of the Synod. It was to be ex-
pected that they would clash from time to time. However, as the
sessions proceeded, the atmosphere improved. Most of our examples
have been taken from the first four sessions. Apparently the legates
gradually started to understand the situation better. Trust began
to grow among them, so that at the end of the fourth session—on
Christmas Eve—they were able to express their unity in the invi-
tation to celebrate together the Christmas Eucharist}. A careful
analysis of the text of the Acts might shed more light on these
two different attitudes and their theological implications?.

Two elements will form the focal points of our analysis. First
of all we shall investigate the ideas held by the most important
factions within the Synod about the significance of this synod, and
perhaps about synods in general. The different opinions of the Roman
legates have been noted already, but perhaps there were other
groups which had particular points of view. In other words, what
did this synod mean for Photius, for the Emperor, for the Fathers
of the Synod, for the Roman legates and for the legates of the
oriental partiarchates? Secondly what place did the Roman legates
hold at this synod? The answer to these questions will give us a
clearer picture of the relations between this Constantinopolitan
synod and the Roman claims of the period.

Ms SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SYNOD OF 879-880

For Photius
Photius was the president, or chairman of this Synod, but he
spoke very seldom, and therefore only rarely expressed his opinion
about this synod. However, there are a few elements which are
worth mentioning.

1. Ibid. 492 E.
2. Cf. also P. SrepHANou, SJ., “Deux conciles, deux ecclésiologies?
Les conciles de Constantinople en 869 et en 879”, in Orientalia Christiana
Periodica 39(1973) 363-407. Because my book was already in print when his
article appeared, I did not have the opportunity to go into the arguments
of Fr. Stephanou, whose evaluation of the facts is different from mine.
128

Photius saw the restoration of unity within the Church as

the main aim of the synod: unity within the local Church of Con-
stantinople itself, but above all restoration of the bond with the
Church of Rome. When the arrival of the Roman legates was an-
nounced, Photius told them to come in, and expressed his Joy that
God had restored John to communion with him:
Thanks be to our great God, who kept him safely, and gave him back
to us in peace and good healtht.

By expressing himself thus, Photius suggested that it was John

VIII who was returning to unity with him, rather than the reverse.
This meant that he saw the cause of the rupture not in his own
action, not even in Constantinople, but in Rome; Rome, which
had been the victim of false information. This same thought can
be found in the fifth session, when Photius—after the acceptance
of the three canons—gave a resumé of the results of the synod:
Now whatever had to be done in this holy and universal synod (has
been accomplished) through God’s goodness, and with the help of our
great and most high Emperors, and with the consent and approval of
the most holy Pope of Rome, our spiritual brother and father, through
his most holy legates who are present here, and (with the approval) of
the three other Sees of the East; now that they have accepted this as a
happy ending, and as the result of our prayer, we bring thanks to our
highest and most loving God, Who took away the scandals from our
midst, and the error of schism, Who joined together dissident feelings,
Who gave concord to the Churches of God?.

These churches are in the first place the Churches of Rome and
Constantinople. According to Photius, the unity of the Church was
the reason for this synod. The content of this restoration of unity
was the re-establishment of communion with Rome, and the
internal peace of the Constantinopolitan Church. Photius was
greatly concerned with Church unity, and he was thankful for the
cooperation of Pope John in this respect. He showed the zeal of
a devoted bishop for the unity of the Church which in the last
analysis is the work of God alone. Who, on the other hand, had been
responsible for the division in the first place? Photius certainly
did not consider himself the cause of the schism, and therefore did

femtbid R880 PAT

Ha Weel, awe (CD).
 129

not consider that he was the one who had to return. At the same
time this does not mean that he accused the Pope of being the
source of the disunity. This is clear frem the text quoted.

An interesting feature of this synod in relation to Photius was

the absence of authoritarianism on the part of the Patriarch.
Nowhere did he push his point of view. When the synod raised the
problem of the bishops who resigned and became monks, and later
wanted to return to their dioceses, Photius asked the opinion of
the Fathers of the synod; they discussed the matter and a canon
was suggested. Even before the reading of the canon Photius asked
for the aggreement of the Roman legates!. This same attitude
is seen a few moments later, when Photius asked:
If there is anything left to be done together, and your meeting is aware
of-it, then it should be accomplished with the prayers and cooperation
of all®.

This is a clear statement of a synodical way of acting. In the exercise

of his presidency Photius showed himself more a chairman than
one who aimed to dominate the meeting. Examples of this are his
reactions to the arrival of the Roman legates, at the beginning of
the first session , and to the arrival of Cosmas, the legate of
Michael of Alexandria. Cosmas carried letters which he gave to
the chairman Photius, who took one of the letters and gave it to
the chartophylax Photinus to be read*. Apparently it was the
opinion of Photius that this synod was a meeting of bishops and
priests who took decisions and acted in cooperation, without any
feeling of competition. Photius took the réle of chairman at this
meeting, and no one seemed to question this.

The sixth session of the Synod—which took place in the palace

of the Emperor with only a few bishops present—was called ‘ecu-
menical’ by Photius *. It was clearly a session of the synod, and
Photius did not consider it important how many bishops were

Ibid. 502 CDE.

Ibid. 503 D.
Ibid. 379 A.
Ibid. 434 A.
Ibid. 519 C.
130

present. This sixth session was a part of the synod, and there was
therefore no need for the bishops not present at this session to
sign the last two sessions separately. These sessions were already
validated by the signatures of the Fathers given at the end of the
fifth session. The horos accepted at the sixth session was the horos
of the synod, and therefore accepted by all. This is a totally different
attitude towards synods from that prevalent in the West where
the numerical majority has become ever more important.

Another interesting element in Photius’ understanding of

this synod, and probably of synods in general, is its relation to
the Emperor. The results of this synod were important because
of the help of the Emperor, as the Pope had mentioned before *.
Thus even this synod which proceeded without the presidency of
the Emperor, was still under his patronage. Without his signature
and confirmation it would not receive recognition in the Empire.
By his signature under the horos the Emperor confirmed that this
synod stood in continuity with orthodoxy. As head of the Familia
Christiana it was the duty of the Emperor to watch over the puri-
ty of orthodoxy 2. It was not necessary afterwards to submit
this signature to the other Fathers for acceptance; they only heard
its announcement and shared in the joy of those who had been
present at the meeting a few days before when the Emperor had
given his signature 3. On the other hand Photius did not ascribe
to the Emperor any competence in religious matters which he did
not have. Photius asked the Fathers at the sixth session if they
agreed that the Emperor sign *. The metropolitans answered that
they did not only agree, but they besought the Emperor to sign °.
This is a good example of the relations within the Church according
to the way of thinking current in the Byzantine Empire. Photius
showed himself a member of this Empire; he shared this opinion.

1. Ibid. 503 D.
2. H. Huncer, Reich der neuen Mitte, Graz-Wien-K6ln 1965, 67ff.
3. Manst XVII 519 D; ‘xpoAxPotca qugon’ is not only the previous
day, but can mean also ‘a few days ago’, cf. p. 79 note 2.
4, Ibid. 517 B.
5. Ibidem, *... 00 udvov ovvevdoxoduev, dAAd xal Seducbx xual maxpaxndod-
. Ly . / ~

WEViE GE»:
 134
The ideas of Photius about a synod also become clear from
his remarks on the Synod of 869. Photius considered it simply
unjust, and therefore null and void.
What happened then, may God give to eternal oblivion and may he
strengthen us to forgive and forget them (these synods)}.

Thus the synod of 869 did not exist in his opinion. What had
happened in 869 was wrong. The only reaction to it was to consider
it as if it had never happened. That is the meaning of the powerful
expression: “May God strengthen us to forget and forgive them”’.
A synod can cease to exist.

For the Emperor

The Emperor had not been present.at the first. five sessions.
When at the sixth session the bishops, of whom there were only
twenty two, met in the imperial palace, the first subject the Em-
peror brought up was this question of his absence. He did not speak
of the death of his son, or give the period of mourning as the reason.
Byzantine bishops of course knew of this, for otherwise they would
not have met at the palace. The Emperor would have come to the
Haghia Sophia. The Emperor said that he should have been pre-
sent, and in the presence of the others should have signed the
resolutions. However, he did not do so, in order to safeguard the
freedom of speech of the Fathers, which might have been ham-
pered if he had been present *. Thus a synod should meet in the
presence of the Emperor, and should be sealed and confirmed by
him. Only by his authority did a synod receive legal value. There
is no reason to question his sincerity when he said that he did not
come because he did not want to interfere. He could have post-
poned the synod until after the period of official mourning. This
indicates a new development in the traditional imperial influence
at a synod 3, showing a clearer understanding of the different
areas of competence proper to Emperor and clergy respectively.
In the words of the Emperor:
We judged it right that after you separately, together with the other

A Ibid’ 2650A.
2. Ibid. 544 BC.
3. Huneer, op. cit. 67ff.
 pontifical sees and the total pleromz of the Charch, un ler th2 inspiration
of God, according to His will and your voluntary and free opinion, had
accomplished everything, we should also by our signature accept and
declare official, what had been defined and confirmed by the Holy Ecu-
menical Council'.

Note the also’ (“‘ouvanodeEauevot te xat ovverixdowy’’). The

Emperor accepted and recognized here the independence of a
synod. In his signature he expressed his agreement “‘together with
this Holy Ecumenical Council” ?.
Another example can be seen when the question of the horos
was brought into discussion.
Further we consider it right, if you think likewise, since everyone is
united in harmony and deep peace, and connected with Christ who is
the Head of all, to proclaim some formula of feeling church, not a new one
that has recently been introduced, but the one which the holy and great
Council of Nicea established as fundamental, and which the other holy
and Ecumenical Councils also used as fundamental and held in common?.

This synod should stand in the line of tradition, in the continuity

of the Church. As head of the Christian family the Emperor sug-
gested expressing this continuity in the Creed of Nicea, but did
not impose his will, merely suggesting: ‘if you think likewise’.

For the Fathers

The Fathers of this synod did not consider the question of

Photius’ reinstatement the issue for which they had come together.
Time and again they stressed that they were at one with their
Patriarch, even before the letters of Pope John had arrived 4.
After the sermon of Cardinal Peter, stressing the importance
and the care of Pope John for the unity of the flock of Christ, John,
the Metropolitan of Heraclea, said: “Already, beforehand, there
was one flock and one shepherd, Photius” °. Nor did the letters

4. Mansi, XVII 513 C.

2 Lbids’547 DD.
3. Ibid. 513 D, «nany &uewov jyoduo et xxl Sutv cuvSoxzi, mivtwv év duo-
volg te xat Babeia cipnvn Eva0évtwv, xxl XororG tH wivtwv xzpxrF ovvagbévrev,
zal Spov tive tod éxxAnoraotixod poovnuxtos dvapwvyIhvx, 0d xxvdv twa xol
mrapetouxtov, aA’ bv H cyte uxt usyrrn ev Nixxtaz obvoSos G9zuzktwse, xat af Aor-
Trak cytor xal oixovuevixal obvodor cuvermnodéunszv tz xxb ovvexodtys2v».
4. Ibid. 456 B.
5. Ibid. 384 A.
 133

coming from the oriental patriarchates influence their adherence

to Photius: “We have already expressed many times our opinion
about Photius” 1. “We do not need letters to accept your (=Pho-
tius’) Pontificate” *. The letters of the oriental patriarchs were
not even necessary to convince the Fathers of the harmonious
opinion about Photius held in the oriental sees ?. This does not
mean that in the eyes-of the Constantinopolitan bishops this synod
did not have any purpose. When the question of Bulgaria was
brought up by the legates of Rome, the synod refused to discuss
the matter, using the argument: “This synod has not been called
together to settle questions of jurisdictions and dioceses; that has
to be done at another time’ +. This shows that they had some
theory about the purpose of this synod. After the reading of the
letter of Pope John to the Bishops of Constantinople, the Roman
legates asked if the synod accepted the letter; the answer of the
Fathers was: ‘““We were already united with Photius before this
letter... Thanks be to God and to John that he now agrees with
us’ >. This is a fair example of how the Fathers saw the purpose
of the Synod. For them the aim of this synod was not to achieve
unity within the Byzantine Church, nor even to achieve unity
between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the oriental
patriarchates ®, but to celebrate the fact that Rome had restored
its communion with Constantinople and the other patriarchates.
Zacharias, Metropolitan of Chalcedon, expressed this conviction
even at the beginning of the synod:
For you (= Rome) this synod has been called together . . . in order that
you might cleanse ‘yourself of the accusations and infamy which you
received recently from everybody because of what has been done against
you, as those people say’.

The others agreed with this comment of Zacharias, although they

were aware that there had been disunity within the Byzantine
Church of which they had been guilty:

Ibid. 437 E.
Ibid. 484 B.
Ibid. 484 A.
Ibid. 420 D.
Ibid. 456 B.
Ibid. 484 A.
Ibid. 385 C.
134

We confess also opposition against him, but we despise this our previous
opinion and conduct and entirely, and with our whole heart we accept
him as priest, lord and shepherd *.

This is repeated when they discussed the absolution of Thomas

of Tyre, one of the legates of the oriental patriarchs in 869. The
synod backed his request for mercy with the argument that the
Fathers had also been forgiven their lapse ?, which shows, that
before the synod many opponents had given up their opposition
and had joined Photius 3.

Besides its purpose, the very existence of this synod reveals

the synodal activity of the Church as understood and lived in the
ninth century. The synod decided. More than 66 times the Acts
say: } a&yla abvodocg eimev, “the synod said’. Apparently it was
not so important who said it. The decisions were taken together.
When the letter of Patriarch Theodosius of Antioch to Photius
in which he spoke about the decisions of his local synod was read
to the Fathers, then the Fathers agreed: ““What Theodosius’ synod
has decided, we accept also”’ 4.
In the question of the general acceptance of the council of
787, one Father after the other gave his opinion, or better expressed
the unanimity of the synod °. In the promulgation of the first ca-
non® the procedure of the synod can be seen: the legates of Rome
proposed a motion to have a canon, and worked out a formula
which was read to all. The synod then accepted this canon. It is
very similar to parliamentary procedure, and shows the collabora-
tion and cooperation of all members.
On the other hand, the number of those in favour was not
important. “Synodically decided’ meant unanimously. It did not
matter how many were present at the meeting. In the seventh ses-
sion the horos of the synod was read to all who had not been pre-
sent at the sixth session. This horos was presented to them as “‘pro-
mulgated (txpwvnbévt« - prolatam) and confirmed (éxuxvembévta

. Ibid. 385 D.
. Ibid. 440 D.
. See p. 78, note 4.
. Mansi XVII 444 D.
. Ibid. 493 E, 496 ABC.
~ bid. 497.
WN
oor
=
 135
confirmatam) by the Holy and Ecumenical Synod” !. The Fathers
of the seventh session were not asked to accept it. It was presented
to them as their work too. “It is right that those who were absent
at that time hear it, so that they may share in the fOyeo:
When they signed at the end of the fifth session, the Fathers
took as a basis the synod itself: “‘consenting to this Holy and Ecu-
menical Synod” 3. The synod itself was an independent authority.
Only the Roman legates referred to Pope John in their signatures,
but their signatures were first read to the other Fathers ad confir-
mationem, so as to make sure that these signatures did express
the feelings of the synod. This was necessary because the legates
had signed in Latin; their signatures had to be translated 4.

The synod had not been called directly to counteract any

heresy although the matter of Iconoclasm was still in the mind of
many. But it was apparently the view of the Fathers that a synod
was not meeting to decide upon desciplinary measures. A synod
was the crystallization of the Church, and it was therefore self-
evident that they accepted the suggestion of the Emperor to ex-
press again their foundation of faith in a horos. “It is good that
the horos is generally accepted (here) and also throughout the whole
Empire (=otxovyévy), and confirmed by this synod” ®. Thus the
synod remained in continuity with all the previous synods, and with
the whole tradition of the Church. This procedure for the horos
also shows the political importance of the unity of faith. Unlike
our secularized political philosophy, which separates State and
Church, the Emperor: thought of an undivorceable marriage be-
tween the spiritual and temporal: as Emperor he was nothing other
than God’s assistant in ruling his kingdom on earth.
With this horos the synod did not want to define a new for-
mula of faith. The Fathers wanted to express their unity with their

Ibid. 520 H.
Ibid. 520 D.
Ibid. 509f.
DeIbid. 508 A, E.
mo
5. Ibid. 518 BH, «é&Zrov xat dixardy éot1... Tov Bp0v xowodv xal tov adtov ava
\ > A

n&oav Thy olxovpévyy civat, Gomep nal wéyor viv got, xal Sud tH¢ Mapovons ovvertt-
yvpw0Fvat obvodev (should be ovvddou)». (Note the identification Empire =
= Oixovuévy).
136

predecessors. They did not think of the formula itself, but wanted
rather to express their feelings as the Church (to éxxAnovaotuxoy
opovnua says the Greek text) ’.
It is not impossible that they reacted against the doctrine
contained in the filioque, but they certainly did react against the
actual addition to the creed. They probably would have been more
explicit, however, if it had been their intention to condemn the
theology behind the filioqgue. They wanted to guarantee the unity
of faith; that was the meaning of the horos, and that was the
meaning of their synod 2. This was also behind their reaction to
the reading of the horos: oftw gpovoduev, obt@ motevouev ®.
“So we think, so we believe’: A synod expressed its faith in conti-
nuity with the past.
In this context it was important that every Church should
accept the synod of 787 as the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Not
only should everyone accept its teaching, as they already did, but
it should be officially numbered among the other councils 4. By
accepting the council of 787 one stood in the tradition of the
Church of the Councils. It was a motion of confidence by the other
local churches in the Church of Constantinople which had already
long accepted this council, which consequently had to be accepted
by everybody >. It was a matter of ecclesiology, as it expressed
the synodal nature of the Church, by which one local Church placed
itself under the judgement of the other Churches:
After the acceptance and the union with the Roman Church has become
a fact, on the intervention of our most holy Patriarch Photius, we ought
to agree with you also in this matter, in order that there should be no
discord in this question either®.

The same line of thought is expressed in the comments on the

synod of 869, during the reading of the commonitorium. Twice
they referred to this synod of 859 as: “that which you call a council”.
It denied everything which a council should be: it should express

. Ibid. 513 D (See p. 132 note 3)

. See pp. 184ff.
. Manst XVII 520 E.
. Ibid. 493. See Kustas, History and Theology in Photius, 60.
. Mansr XVII 516 B; the Greek text mentions seven synods
orwnr while
the Latin translation speaks only of six.
6. Manst XVII 493 E.
 137

unity, it should examine the credeatials of the legates, sent by the

Patriarches, it should be in continuity with the other councils,
it should be just and honest, and it should respect law and church
order 1.

Although the Emperor had not been present at the synod,

he played an important role. Without him neither Byzantine socie-
ty nor the Church as a united body could be imagined. “The unity
is the result of the divine care of the great and high Emperors” 2.
In the Christian family the Emperor was the head, and the person
responsible. It is interesting to see this conviction alive among
the Fathers of the synod:
You confirmed the dogmas of the orthodox faith. You removed the
scandals from the Church’s midst, and through your intervention peace
has been given to the Church of God °. :

This is not to be understood as caesaropapism, as if the Em-

peror were an absolute authority who used the Church for his
political aims. This idea would be strange to the bishops of the
Photian Synod, and also to the Emperor. In the same sixth ses-
sion—after the reading of the horos—the Fathers were asked wheth-
er they agreed with the Emperor’s signing. The Fathers besought
and asked the Emperors to accept everything in the synod, and
to seal it with his signatures *. This was a clear example of
the symphonia between the Emperor and the bishops. The bishops
were asked if they agreed, and they asked the Emperor. They were
aware of their mission within the Church, and at the same time of
their place within the totality of the Empire. This same symphonia
became clear in the seventh session when the Fathers wanted to
hear the reading of the signatures of the Emperors. They considered
themselves responsible *. That was their priesthood. This sympho-
nia was the result of their religious belief that the whole world was
a reflection of God’s Kingdom on earth. Emperor and clergy each
had their own responsibilities, which sometimes overlapped; but
in the unity of their faith and dedication, collisions were generally

. Ibid. 472 AB; see App. 1516ff.

. Manst XVII 484 B.
pol bidie savas
ml bidmpiya Be
. Ibid.
or
wn
= 524 ABC.
138

avoided !. Thus there also were matters which belonged first

to the realm of the Emperor, and were later subject to approval
by the bishops, such as the question of Bulgaria. When the Roman
legates conveyed to the synod the Pope’s wish to have the jurisdic-
tion of this diocese given back to him, the bishops of the synod
protested. This matter should be left to the Emperor. He had to
deal with this question in a decree; it was his task to divide the
dioceses, and at a given time the synod could give its approval,
“if God wanted’. This was repeated with other arguments by Gregory,
Metropolitan of Ephesus. “Practical reasons prohibited its treat-
ment”, he said. The Synod had not met for this purpose ®.
The faithfulness of the Emperor to this vocation received
—in a manner reminiscent of the Old Testament—confirmation
and remuneration from God himself, the bishops said:
Because you have brought unity to the Church of God and eliminated
all scandals from her, may God submit all barbarian nations to your
mighty and great hand, and may our Lord God give the old borders
of the Roman Empire to your mighty and peacemaking kingdom.

It is by no means strange that there appears in this context some

reference to David, for to a certain extent the Emperor took the
role of David within the Byzantine People of God:
It is really appropriate to apply to you this text of David: You have
loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, your God, has
anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellow-men*.

This central position of the Emperor was emphasized also in the

restoration of the peace within the Church. It was the Emperor
who
restored Photius, and brought unity to the Church. May God cast all
people who want war, at his feet. This we ask through Mary, through
the Apostles Peter and Paul, and through Photius’.

At the end of the Synod we find an expression which perhaps

surprises us. In his eulogy on Photius, Procopius, the Metropolitan
of Caesarea in Cappadocia, says:

. HUNGER, op. cit. 68.

. Mansr XVII 420 CD.
» Ibid. 547. B.
Bbides520mA\.
mone

5. Tbid. 521 C. No mention is made of Pope John.

 139
Such a man (Photius) is really the one who received the care of the whole
world?.

It would be wrong to infer prejudice against Rome from this

It is rather the expression of a Byzantine bishop for whom the
Empire was the whole world, the Empire, in fact, only being the
Fastern part. It was a straightforward expression praising the
greatness of Photius, and his pastoral activity and his work to
re-establish unity in Constantinople and was without juridical
connotations. arg
When the question of the promotion of laymen to the episco-
pacy was being discussed in the Syaod, Zacharias, Metropolitan
of Chalcedon, called attention to the fact that the canon of Sardica
which forbade this custom 2, was not put into practice anywhere
in the East, and was not even obeyed in the West. Then he said:
“Photius does not even come under this law; he is worthy to be
Patriarch” °, because Photius was well educated, and able to
give guidance, while the reason for the canon was to prevent people
without ability and capacity from becoming bishops. “Is natural
hairgrowth (=lack of tonsure) an impediment, he asked, when
a layman’s life is according to the Gospel?” He did not seem
too disturbed by the fact that this canon was not in use. “A custom
can bring a law into disuse’, he had said 4. Later on, at the dis-
cussion of the commonitorium, the question of the promotion of
laymen to the episcopacy was brought up again and is a good
example of the views of the synod on the various traditions in
East and West.
The sacred synod said: Every episcopal see kept some old customs, by
tradition; they should not fight and quarrel over this among themselves.
Let the Roman Church keep its customs, that is right, but let the Church
of Constantinople also keep her traditions which she received from of
old, and likewise the oriental patriarchates. If therefore the Roman
Church never received a Bishop from the ranks of the laymen, let her
keep this custom. It is not right to shake the set rules of the Fathers.
However, because the oriental sees have never kept this rule, nor the
Church of Constantinople, we certainly approve that such people come
forward from the clergy and the monks, so that the vote of the episco-

4, Ubid: 520 EB:

2. AAIBIZATOY, Ot iegoi xavdreg..., 189.
3. Manst XVII 460 AB.
ee Lbide 457) 1):
140
them, and there
pacy falls on them; but if there are no candidates among
the laymen, then no one should relin-
are more capable people among
capable people and shift his vote to those less capable
quish the more
and of less merit*.

No one should be disturbed by the difference of customs and

us.
laws in East and West. Let each Church keep her own traditio

For the Roman legates

The Roman legates received great respect from the Fathers
of the synod, in spite of the tense atmosphere which we mentioned
previously, but on the other hand it is clear from the Acts that the
Roman legates saw in this synod an apportunity to strengthen
and expand Roman influence in the East.
Photius presided over the synod, but nowhere does it appear
that the legates paid much attention to this. It would be more
true to say that they considered themselves to be the leaders of
the synod, for at various times they acted as if they were the chair-
men. When Photius had decided to adjourn the first session, Pe-
ter took the floor again:
Let the Sacred Synod listen again . . °

After the letter of Pope John to the Bishops had been read, the
legates asked: “Do you accept this letter?” $ At the end of the fifth
session, the legates demanded that all give their signatures to the
decisions 4.
For the Roman legates, Rome was the see of the “Most Holy
and Ecumenical’ Pope of Rome, who possessed the authority of
Saint Peter: “Saint.Peter visits you” ®. It was as an authorita-
tive visit, a canonical visitation, that the Roman legates understood
the synod.
You all know, bishops and priests, that our apostolic Lord, and head of
the Roman Church sent us for the peace and concord of the Church °.
Just as a good father longs for his children, and a good shepherd for

. Ibid. 489 B.
Sl bideg3 Sab.
Ibid. 456 AB.
Ibid. 505 A.
. bid. 380 C.
ia
LS
ene . Ibid. 389 E-
COMLCT
 141
his sheep, so the Pope does not stop...:.. guiding you, because he wants
the whole Church of God to be one, so that it may become one flock
with one shepherd?.
The Pope desired to show his concern and pastoral care for the
Church by watching over the other Churches. He sent his letter
so that everybody know how much care he has and how much he worries
about the Church of God, over which you stand, and how much love and
‘faith he has in your Beatitude?.
Nevertheless, this pastoral care of the Pope respected the identity
of the local Church of Constantinople under its own bishop (q xat&
ot ExxAnota).

When after the reading of the letter of Pope John to the bish-
ops of Constantinople, Procopius commented that the letter
was out of date, Elias of Jerusalem said: “It is excellent that every-
one agrees with Jerusalem’’. Cardinal Peter did not care for this
chauvinistic remark. Perhaps he detected in it a lack of respect
for Rome’s influence in pestarti unity within the Constantinopoli-
tan Church. He said:
That is exactly the reason why John has sent us: to confirm the harmony
and peace of the Church ...So with one mouth and one faith praising
God, keep without hesitation your love for the most holy Patriarch Pho-
tius. And if you already found yourselves in unity with him—as you say—
then thanks to God who even before us established the peace?.

This sounded like an example of fraternity within the Church,

where one local church saw its responsibility for the well-being
of an other. On the other hand the legates cannot leave all to God:
‘even before us’, implies that it was exceptional that God worked
without Rome’s involvement.
This is an example of a tendency which was noticeable many
times during the synod. The Roman legates would have liked to
see a deeper significance in this pastoral care and interest of Rome
they would have been happy to consider the Church of Constanti-
nople to a certain degree subordinate to Rome. Immediately
after their arrival at the first session, Cardinal Peter had explained
the purpose of the legates’ coming:
t

4. Ibid. 381 H, 384 A.

2. Ibid. 380 E.
3. Ibid. 409 A.
142
sent us to the most
... our apostolic Lord and ecumenical Pope John
Lord Photius, in order to eradicate the scandals which
holy Patriarch,
one for everybody,
rose in his Church, and in order that--because God is
and baptism is one, and faith is one--there should be one flock and one
shepherd?.
fact
This is further exemplified in the comment of Peter on the
that Photius had accepte d a second term as patriar ch without
consulting Rome, and without waiting for the arrival of the Roman
legates: He should have waited, “and it was not good to do it be-
fore” ®.
Other Popes had restored bishops like Flavian, John Chryso-
stom and Cyril of Alexandria’, and Pope John was certainly
no less Pope than they were, nor less than his predecessors Hadrian
and Nicholas; he too had the authority and the capacity to do
whatever was necessary for the Church. It was simply stated that
Pope John was the one who restored Photius. “And the whole
Church should know that Photius is a true brother of the ecumeni-
cal Pope” +.
This attitude of the legates had undergone a slight moderation
during their stay in Constantinople. They had begun to understand
that there was a real difference between their own Roman opinions
and the way of thinking prevalent in Constantinople. They ac-
cordingly grew more open to the Eastern point of view, and at
a certain moment they could say:
Photius has been chosen rightly, and the Pope comes now and confirms
it and accepts it®.

It was still Pope John who confirmed and accepted, but Photius
“has been elected rightly’.
After the reading of the letter of Patriarch Theodosius of
Jerusalem, Cardinal Peter commented:
Look now how the most holy patriarchs of the East have sent synodal
letters, confirming and accepting Photius the most holy Patriarch; in

1. Ibid. 389 BC.

2. Ibid. 420 D, «... od% hy xarov med TH¢ CAedoews Hudv avedIciv adtév».
3. Mansi XVII 425 DE. This is a reference to the letter of Pope John
to the Emperors (App. 239-244 CV, 445-454 RV).
4. Ibidem.
5. Ibid. 460 D.
 143
the same way our Lord the ecumenical Pope has also sent a letter which
you have heard, consenting to everything which the most holy patriarchs
have said on the acceptance and restauration of the aforesaid most holy
Patriarch.

They could not entirely abandon their Roman point of view that
Photius had to be restored, even if they expressed themselves in
much milder terms than in former sessions. Later—after Photius’
account of his re-establishment—they were convinced, and im-
pressed by his personality; for a moment they forgot they were
Romans: “Such a man Constantinople has not known for along
time” ®. At the end of the synod such a change of mind had taken
place that they could express a real eulogy on the greatness of
Photius 3. With no difficulty they accepted the return of the
patricians in the fourth session: “Whom Photius accepts, we ac-
cept too 4.
Nevertheless, when the authority of the Pope was directly
at stake, they were more rigid; when the letter of Patriarch Theodo-
sius of Antioch was read in the fourth session, Cardinal Peter
took the floor: ;
You all know, reverend brothers and fellow celebrants, that we came
here because of the peace and unity of this holy Church of Constantinople,
and because of the acceptance of the most holy Patriarch Photius. And
see, we notice that the oriental sees as a whole feel the same and sent
their letters of recommendation. We rejoice in the fact that all pontifical
sees agree in such a concord with the Lord and our lord, the ecumenical
Pope. She (=éxeivyn=Rome) is the head of all Churches, and what
they did, namely follow the most holy Roman Church, they did under
approval of the Holy Spirit °.

Thus Peter used the letter of Theodosius to confirm the autho-

rity of the Roman See. Whenever they could, they showed that they
had understood their mission of expanding the position of Rome.

Ibid. 464 C.
Ibid. 468 A.
one Thid. 484 EB.
> . Ibid. 485 EH.

5. Ibid. 480 C; P. STEPHANOU, SJ., ““Deux conciles, deux ecclesiologies?

Les conciles de Constantinople en 869 et en 879” in Orientalia Christiana
Periodica 39(1973) 401 translates wrongly ‘‘Celui-ci (=le pape) en effet est
la téte de toutes les Eglises, ...”.
oO)
144

Rome ordered; Rome had authority, and the legates were aware
of it:
We want your sacred meeting to consent to the aforementioned chapters
(of the Commonitorium)'.

When Metrophanes refused to appear before the synod, and

to unite himself to Photius, the legates said:
_.. he can find nonsensical and empty pretexts, the one right and saving
word he cannot say, namely: I unite myself to the Church according
to the command of the most holy Pope John’.

It is not clear if Church in this context refers to the universal Church

or the Constantinopolitan local Church. This is not so important.
Obedience to the command of Pope John was obviously the impor-
tant issue to the Roman legates. They condemned Metrophanes
according to the verdict of the Papal letters and the Commonito-
rium 3, This papal authority went so far in their opinion that it
was Pope John who gave Photius the power (we would say the
jurisdiction) to decide on the future of the penitents who returned
to him +. Or in other terms:
This authority Photius had received already before our coming, from
God, and now he possesses it twice over because of the mandate of the
most holy Pope ?.

Unexpectedly the validity of Photius’ episcopacy is affirmed

here, which is interesting, especially in connection with the verdict
of 869, but here again the authority of Pope John received a spe-
cial emphasis.
The signature of the Roman legate Paul of Ancona gives a
good resumé of the mentality and way of thinking of the Roman
legates:
I, Paul, the most humble bishop of the holy Church of Ancona, and

1. Ibid. 488 A.
2. Ibid. 497 A. «érel 8& xal vdv drooteiAdvtmy HUdy Toeopdcetc exetvoc
ev duaetiars meomact{etan, xal uatatac wev pAvaclacg ual d&mootactas Adyoug Sbva-
tar Aéyewv, Ev dd pHUc do0dv xal owrtjpLov od Sdvatat eimety, TO, idob sya Evodwar
TH exxrAnota xatd thy évtodhy tod ayr@ta&tov mama "lacvvoun.
3. Manst XVII 501 A, 497 B.
4. Ibid. 501 BC.
5. Ibid. 505 B.
 145
legate of the holy Apostolic See and of my Lord, the most blessed John,
supreme Pontiff and ecumenical Pope of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Roman Church, accept, at this Holy and Universal Synod, according
to the mandate, the orders and consent of our most holy Apostolic and
ecumenical Pope John, and with the consent of the Holy Church of Con-
stantinople, and with the consent of the legates of the three other patri-
archal Sees, and in agreement with the vote of this Holy and Ecumenical
Synod, this venerable Photius in his pontifical dignity, as duly and cano-
nically elected, and I am in communion with him, according to the te-
nure of the letters and the instructions of the Commonitorium. I reject
however, and anathematize the synod which was summoned against
him in this Holy-Church of Constantinople. Whatever has been done
against him in any way during the time of Hadrian, of pious memory,
former Pope of Rome, I declare abolished, I anathematize it and reject
it, and I do not count this (synod) among the synods. And should it ever
happen that some break the unity in the Holy Church of God and oppose
its highest shepherd and holy ecumenical Patriarch Photius, then they
should be separated from the Holy Church of God, and are to remain
excommunicated until they return to the Holy Church of God and are
in communion with the holy and ecumenical Patriarch, and are in agree-
ment with the Apostolic See. Also I recognize the Holy and Ecumenical
Synod which gathered the second time in Nicea to deal with the holy
and venerable Icons, at the time of Hadrian of pious memory, who was
formerly Pope of Rome, under the most holy Patriarch of the Church
of Constantinople, Tarasius, as the Seventh Holy and Ecumenical
Council, and I count it with the six Holy Synods. I signed with my own
hand t.

Paul of Ancona said that he accepted Photius ‘according to the

mandate, the precept and approval of the Pope’, thus making sure
that he stayed within the limits of his competence, so as to avoid
the fate of his colleagues Zacharias of Anagni and Rodoald of
Porto at the synod of 861. The two other Roman legates Eugenius
and Peter approved the statement of their colleague, and added
their signatures.

This signature also however, points to another important fea-

ture: They signed according to the mandate of Pope John but also
“with the consent of the legates of the three other pontifical sees,
and in agreement with the vote of this same Holy and Ecumenical

4. Ibid. 508 AB, «...xat tod deomdétov pov “Iwévvov tod toLrounxaoetotov
. ~ ~ i

cho aylas xaborxte xal drootoMxtis TOY Payatwy exxrnotuc tod axpotatov HeytLe-
~ ~ ~ / ~ 3 / >

otws, xual olxovpevinod mama... .».

146

Synod”. Thus they were aware of the importance of the synodical

procedure within the Church. The oriental patriarchates were
called ‘the other sees’. Rome was thus in a special way connected
with them, part of a larger structure. This is a reference to the
pentarchy. The unanimous votes of their colleagues at the synod
were also important. They knew that they were not deciding on
their own. They asked the opinion of the others: “if you agree
...’ 1, This same respect for the synodical approach to Church
affairs was heard also in the last words of the legates at the synod:
Our Lord, the Apostolic (Pope) sent us, humble ones, on the instigation
of the Emperor, and moved by your prayers, and together with you we
brought the Church of God to unity, a fact which has been achieved by
the Holy Spirit, and you have become one body and one flock under one
shepherd ?.

The achievement of unity was a common work: “together with

you we made the Church one body’’. The conclusion of the quoted
text shows the change of mentality which the legates had undergone
during the synod: “One body and one flock you became under one
shepherd’. There is no doubt that this refers to the one Church of
Constantinople under the shepherd Photius. In a previous session
this same text had been used in a much more Roman way ?.
These examples already show with sufficient clarity that the
Roman legates in those days thought of the Church as a synodical-
ly ruled body. There is more evidence for this. When the question
of the bishops who were unwilling to unite with Photius arose
(first session), Peter said:
Let everybody hear what Felix says, who was the most holy Pope of
the Church of Rome: ‘If someone rebels against the holy Church of God,
he has to be first, after proof, admonished by his bishop, and his bishops
(=synod); if he does not obey then the holy synod should pronounce
sentence against him’.

1. E.g. Mansi XVII 428 B, where they suggest to read the letters which
the legates of the oriental patriarchates had brought with them.
2. Mansi XVII 521 EB, «...6 xdpiog Sudv 6 &rootodinds tate tod Bact-
AEs Tapaxrhosor, xal buetéoatc Sehacoww sminxuqbetc, dméoterAev Husic tode srar-
xtotous, iva uel? Sudv thy éxxAnolav tod @cod ets &v ovvaykywuev. 6 Sid tod mveb-
Yatog tod aytov yéyove, xal Ev oun xal ula moiuvy ig’ emumoméve éyevhOyten.
3. Ibid. 384 A.
4, Ibid. 392 D.
 147
Another example was the acceptance of the synod of 787 as ecu-
menical; Rome accepted this synod as ecumenical ‘in agreement
with an other Churches’ !. Cardinal Peter did not say: ‘the other
churches in agreement with Rome’.
At the beginning of the second session, Cardinal Peter spoke
about the letters which the Emperor had written:
The Emperors... haye written letters at various times about the peace
_ which we have now, to the Mother of all Churches, the great city of Rome,
and so also did the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch,
urging the most holy Pope John to confirm and accept the peace which
we have made?.

The authority of Pope John and of the Church of Rome was stressed,
but at the same time the independence of a synod was empha-
sized: ““The peace which we (=the synod) have made”’.

This text and also the quotation on page 146 “Our Lord...
shepherd”, have another element which is important, namely the
relation of the legates to the Emperor. Although living so far from
Constantinople, the Roman legates showed that they were members
of the Byzantine Empire. They came to Constantinople ‘on the
instigation of the Emperor’ 3, and “because the Emperor has
written’ 4. They recognized his authority: “As the Emperor
orders ..., there should not be drawn up a new formula of faith’’®.
In the matter of Bulgaria, however, they seemed to overlook
his authority, and wanted to push the synod-to accept the Roman
point of view. After reading the letter which Pope John had sent
to the bishops, Cardinal Peter asked (in the third session) :“Will you
do everything which the letter says’? The Antiochene legates
answered: ““Yes, but whatever depends on the Emperor, we leave

Apmlibidhs 493).
2. Ibid. 393 E, «Baotheroc, Agwv xat “AAgEavde0c, edoeBéotator Baotacic,
“81a Thy viv clohyny xal dudvouay to Kavotavtwounoritéy exxArnotag anéotetrev
ele thy untéea TOyv exxAnordy thy weyardrorw Poduyy xal drmak nal die emrotordc.
od pev 58 dAAk nal “Arctavdeeic xat “Tepooorvpitar, xa “Avtroyetc, tapaxadodv-
neg Tov ayLdtatov mémav “Tlwdwyy BePardoar xat drodeeacban thy map’ HUdv ovp-
povnleicay etoqvyy».
3. Mansi XVII 521 H.
4, Ibid. 393 EH.
iio illoriely Gully AN
148

to him’. Peter was not convinced or satisfied with this evasive

answer: “But the letter contains only matters which are reasonable”,
he said }. After the reading of the letter of Pope John to the Em-
perors, the Roman legates asked: “Do you accept this” ? The Synod
answered: ‘Whatever concerns the acceptance of the Church and
Photius, we accept, but whatever regards the Emperor, we leave
to him’? *:

For the legates of the oriental patriarchates ?

The position and the opinions of the oriental legates are dif-
ficult to investigate. Their presence at the synod is confusing and
their letters do not make a judgement any easier. Hergenréther
thinks therefore that these letters are falsifications, or at least
revisions of original letters 3. Photius is said to have been the
originator of these changes or revisions, which is possible, but,
because of the special position of the Patriarchs, their letters were
less in need of revision than the papal letters.
At the synod of 869 legates of the oriental patriarchates had
also been present. Their colleagues in 879 accused them of being
partisans of the Moslems. One of these legates of 869, a certain
Thomas of Tyre, had repented and sent his libellus penitentiae to
the Fathers of the synod of 879 with the request that he should be
absolved. It is beyond our scope to exhaust the problem of these
legates at the synod of 869, but within the context of the difficult
situation of the Saracene domination one could understand that
the legates of the East followed a policy that was to a certain
extent opportunistic. Both in 869 and 879 they followed the point
of view of Constantinople, simply because they were in great need
of help, which only the Church of Constantinople was capable of
giving them +.

In this analysis the oriental legates have their own paragraph.

This is a material distinction; in fact they form part of the synod.
The data supplied by their letters and comments help to complete

1. Ibid. 456 C.
Db 442 BG:
3. HERGENROETHER, op. cit. II 416ff.
4 . Cf. on this issue Hercenroetuer, op. cit. Il 423ff. We do not
investigate this further.
 149

our knowledge of the mentality and opinions of the Fathers of

the Synod, and of Photius himself; the latter especially in the case
where these letters have undergone revision or alterations. During
the synod these oriental legates always appeared as a solid group.
They gave their opinions together; one legate took the floor in
the name of them all!. This is understandable. As they were
all in the same difficult situation of Moslem domination, they
formed a closely knit group throughout the synod, looking towards
Constantinople for help. As one of their letters says: Photius had
sent them teoatixa?, which probably meant offerings for their
Churches. Because of this response to their needs, they looked
favourably on him, and we should read their letters with this in
mind.
The letter of the Patriarch of Alexandria 3 to the Emperor was
a eulogy of Photius, whom the Alexandrian Patriarch had always
accepted, according to the letter. He disassociated himself from
his legates of 869, because the Emperor did so. The only real
item of importance in this letter was the demand for material
help. In his letter to Photius, Michael surpassed himself in praise
and used terms which cannot be taken too seriously 4: ‘Archshep-
herd of priestly perfection’, and ‘Archshepherd of the human
sheep». He needed the support of Photius. This is sufficiant ex-
planation of this language, which was not an attack on the Roman
See as some have suggested °..The same has to de said of the let-
ter of Patriarch Theodosius of Jerusalem to: Photius ®. Here also
we find a terminology which seems exaggerated: “O divine Hier-
arch’ and ‘Foundation. of the Churches’, and ‘Divine one and de-
fender of the Great Church of Christ’, or ‘Sacred head of the body
of the Church’ 7. He noted how “everywhere it is heard that the
Church of God is strengthened under your godly ruled providence
and pastoral vigilance’ ®. For these oriental patriarchs the

. E.g. Mansi XVII 449 A, 505 D.

, Ibid’ 43764.
Noe

. Ibid. 428-432.
. Ibid. 433-437.
. JduGin, Le Schisme byzantin, 122.
. Mansi XVII 441-444. *
wp
ore
ND bid, 440 1).
8. Ibidem. See also the letter of Abramius who calls Photius ‘xécee
matéowy, Mansr XVII 445 D.
150

Church of Constantinople was the light in their darkness. They

needed to say this because it enabled them to bear their own
difficult situation. The letter of Theodosius of Antioch? there-
fore wished to express this solidarity with Constantinople when it
said that the Synod (of 879) could decide whatever it wanted
about Church unity, and even about the Church of Antioch ‘and
we shall accept it? 2. This is not a theological statement about
the primacy of the Church of Constantinople, but an expression
of confidence in this Great Church, the only one who was able to
help them.

For these reasons it is very difficult to find an answer to the

question of what ideas they had about the purpose of the Synod
of 879. Their opinions are confusing. It is as if they were not really
interested in the problems which the Synod seemed to deal with.
They had other problems. The letter of Theodosius of Antioch
spoke about the schism within the Church of Constantinople °,
but the legates from the Orient spoke more generally about the
fact that they had been invited to come to a synod to share the
common joy of the unity that had been achieved +. Michael of
Alexandria even suggested that the problems had been a matter of
disunity between the Emperor and Photius®. At another point
the legates saw the unity between the Church of Rome and the
other local Churches as the major point on the agenda ®. With
their signatures they all stated that the recognition of Photius was
not the reason for the synod. They had accepted him before ’.
The language which they used in connection with the Emperor
has to be understood also within the context of their need for help
and protection. They had come from the Orient on the invitation
of the Emperor §. In his letter, Michael of Alexandria said that
he did not praise the Emperor so much because of his conquests,

Ibid. 477.
Ibid. 480 A.
Ibid. 477 C.
Ibid. 476 E.
Ibid. 428, 429 A.
Ibid. 409 A.
Ibid. 509.
. Ibid.
won
OANA 388 D.
 151

but because of his care for the Church!; he had eliminated

the schism*. We can understand this distinction. The conqu-
ests of the Emperor, it must be remembered, had not liberated
the East. It was this that the Christians in Egypt were really
waiting for. Theodosius of Jerusalem was less ironical. He expres-
sed the hope that the Emperor would liberate them in the future:
“Through the prayers of the Apostolic sees, may your Empire
possess the limits of the earth, and gather together all dispersed
sons of the Catholic Church’ °. Such expressions show that they
considered the Emperor the head of the whole Christian Family.
They themselves were really Romans or Melkites (Imperials). It is
interesting to note the identification of the Catholic Church and
the Empire.

Where their own position as Patriarchates is concerned, they

did not seem to have fixed ideas. They accepted and they acknow-
ledged their own importance, using the titles Pontifical sees, Apo-
stolic sees, and the like. Elias of Jerusalem spoke about Jerusalem
as ‘the Mother of all Churches, Holy Sion’ 4.
In the fifth session Metropolitan Basil, the legate of Antioch,
spoke about those who caused schisms within the Church; he then
said:
The great bishops of our sees, who, as always, feel inseparably united
with the most holy Patriarch Photius, since he ascended the pontifical
throne, have even sent us here; they gave the most holy Patriarch Pho-
tius the power and the authority—in the case of a priest or a layman
daring to separate himself from the holy Church of God—to act against
such people in whatever way His Holiness might judge right, so that the
one who has received the authority of the oriental sees, and also who has
accepted the right of Roman authority, as we have just heard, or rather
the one who rules as a bishop on God’s order, may bind with the un-
breakable bond of the Holy Spirit; those we shall consider bound too,
and whosoever he may release we shall also consider released’.

Besides their conviction of their own importance, this last

Ibid. 428.
Ibid. 428 B. /
Ibid. 464 A.
Ibid. 481 A.
. Ibid.
WON
or 500 AB.
152

quotation shows also that the Oriental Patriarchs considered the

Church as a communion, a synodos, where all work and decide
together. In general this element was very strong in the minds of
the oriental patriarchs and legates. They thought synodically.
The letter of Elias of Jerusalem was quite explicit: the Churches
‘feel together and suffer together’ ?. The oriental Churches trans-
mitted to Constantinople the decisions of their synods about Pho-
tius 2. The comment which we have quoted already: ‘Sion, the
mother of all Churches’ 3 expresses the awareness of Jerusalem
that it should care for its sister Churches. It is a demand of
orthodoxy. So Elias of Jerusalem said:
Those who belong to Orthodoxy have to obey the orthodox Fathers,
and especially the divine preacher of the Church, Paul, so that all may
be one body in Christ Jesus who is the head of all *.

It was important that they brought their own synodical deci-

sions to Constantinople, so that the whole body of the Church might
share in their common responsibility °. So the matter of the pen-
ance of Thomas of Tyre was brought to the judgement of the
Fathers of the synod of 879 although he had been sentenced already
by Theodosius of Antioch ®, and also by Michael of Alexandria
from whom he had asked forgiveness 7. Photius also had to for-
give him at the synod of the great Church 8. During the discussions
on this matter it became clear that the question of the false legates
of the East at the synod of 869 of which Thomas of Tyre had been
one, had been discussed at a synod by the Patriarchates of Jeru-
salem and Antioch ®. Apparently the oriental patriarchates were
always in contact with each other; they decided and discussed
their common problems together.
The real reason for this synodical thinking was given by Elias

Ibid. 480 AB.

Ibid. 436 A.
—
on Ibid. 481 A.
=. Ibid. 481 D.
Ibid. 476 CDE.
Ibid. 445.
Ibid. 437-440.
Ibid. 445.
em Ibid.
oOmrr 433ff, the letter of Michael of Alexandria to Photius.
 153

of Jerusalem when he seconded the motion to declare the Synod

of 787 ecumenical and to count it with the other six:
... her dogmas are congenerous and related and of the same faith as
the six ecumenical synods'.

Synodical thinking expressed the continuity of the Church: Who-

ever did not accept the council of 787 as ecumenical, did not accept
the other six either, and therefore was outside the Church.

3. THE ROLE OF THE ROMAN LEGATES

The Synod and the legates from Rome

At this synod the question of its relation to the Roman Church
played a special role. Sometimes the purpose of the synod was
even expressed in terms of this relation. The unity between Rome
and the Constantinopolitan Church had been restored. For a better
picture therefore, of the relationship between the two Churches
in those days, it would be as well to ask what place the Roman
legates held in the synod, not directly in their own eyes, but from
the point of view of the Fathers of the synod, and of Photius.

The Roman legates seemed to have assumed a position of

“presidency together with Photius and the legates of the oriental
patriarchates ?. When the question of the penitents who wanted
to return to unity with Photius was brought up, the legates from
Rome were first asked for their opinion *. They signed the Acts
first 4. They were present together with the legates from the East,
again in a position of presidency, at the sixth session which took
place in the imperial palace *. At the end of the synod the Roman
legates have the final word: an exhortation to accept Photius and
to maintain unity with him °.
This honorary position of the legates did not meet with op-

ile, Moyes PACK (Ee

2. E.g. Ibid. 449 C. See also the description of the meetings of the Gener-
al Councils in F. Dvornix, “Emperors, Popes and General Councils” in
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 6(1951) 18.
3. Mansi XVII 500 CG. y
. Ibid. 508.
wulibidot2 G75 13;
oO
©om . Ibid. 524 C.
154

position on the part of the Synod. It shows that an honorary posi-

tion of the Church of Rome within the Universal Church was ac-
cepted by the others. But there were a few instances in which the
synod opposed the tendency of the Roman legates to give more
content to their position, and to justify their presidency with legal
arguments. The absolution of Thomas of Tyre in the second session
is an example. The legates demanded that this should be submitted
to the judgement of Pope John. The synod protested: “No, to our
Patriarch, because it is against him that he (Thomas) has sinned” }.
At another time the legates expressed the typically Roman opin-
ion that the unity of the oriental patriarchs (with Photius) was
a form of obedience to Pope John ?. The synod replied: if some-
one does not agree, and does not rejoice in the unity, then he does
not deserve the joy of salvation. The plea for unity was thus on
deeper grounds. They therefore said: “If someone does not accept
Photius... as all pontifical sees claim...’ There was no distinc-
tion between Rome and the other pontifical sees. Apparently
Cardinal Peter understood. He dropped the issue and changed the
subject 3.

There were however also a few instances in which the synod

seemed to accept a more authoritative position of the Roman
legates. At the end of the first session, Cardinal Peter exhorted the
bishops and priests who refused to accept Photius, to go to him;
Photius would receive them. The synod agreed, and said:
There are only a few, as far as we know, but we admonish them, as you
have ordered. But if they come to you, please admonish them too’.

Here the legates received a special position.

Although Zacharias of Chalcedon did not agree with Rome
on the question of the promotion of laymen to the episcopacy,
he showed great respect for the Roman Church, and for the Roman
legates:
You who are the beacons which send your rays throughout the whole
world .. >.

Ibid. 440 E.
Ibid. 480 C.
Ibid. 480 CDE.
Ibid. 392 D.
. Ibid. 457 D.
 AS
Even such a person as Procopius who defended so sternly the
independence of the Constantinopolitan Church, asked the Roman
legates to do everything in their power to urge the dissident bishops
and priests to give up their revolt. Cardinal Peter consented: “We
will do that, and we will reach out a hand to them’? !. Again the
importance of the Roman legates in the eyes of Constantinople
was emphasized.

The Synod and the Roman Church

In general the Fathers showed great respect for the Pope and
the Roman Church, but there was a faction in Constantinople
which was more pro-Roman. We have already noticed this in the
papal letters. When in the fourth session two patricians of this
faction asked for mercy and wanted to be united with Photius,
their argument was that they had heard Rome had recognized
Photius *. The attitude of these patricians is clear from the answer
of the Fathers of the synod:
Of course we accept them, because they had no other reason (for their
schism) as we heard from themselves, than that they were abducted and
deceived by false legates and certain other people (the Roman legates
of 8697).

The patricians then gave their opinion:

If we had only given our signature against him, our most holy Patriarch,
then we should receive absolution only from’ him; but because what
we had done was a crime, we waited for the other see (=Rome) so that
they might absolve us °.

Note in this text the expression the other see. Apparently their
‘crime’ was so great that Constantinople could not absolve it. This
incident shows again the synodical mentality of those days, but
at the same time it emphasized the importance of Rome and its
Church.
Talking about the genesis of the problem which divided East
and West, Zacharias spoke about the people of the Byzantine Pa-
triarchate who had for the most part followed the decisions of the

1. Ibid. 409 BCD.

2. Ibid. 485 CD.
3. Ibid. 485 D.
156

Emperor, and had accepted Photius. A few, on the other hand,

had refused to accept this decision. They had made an appeal to
Rome, with the argument that Rome had ordered it.
They behaved—Zacharias said—as some robber or murderer who might
say, if he were accused of such a crime: ‘I do this crime with the permis-
sion of the Romans’, and so Rome, which always had enjoyed peace,
became the source of trouble for others *.

Very clearly this quotation reflects the respect in Constan-

tinople for the Roman Church. At the same time it shows that a
faction existed which accepted Rome as an authority of the first
order. As Zacharias said on another occasion, this group had caused
much trouble because of its adherence to Rome. They had tried
to bring the Roman Church which for so many years had enjoyed
liberty, to slavery, because they had accepted the attitude of Popes
Hadrian and Nicholas, yet, refused to accept what Pope John had
decided. The reason was clear, Zacharias explained; Nicholas and
Hadrian had been acting according to the desires of this group,
but Pope John had not wanted to follow them. Thus in fact they
were not following any Pope, but forcing the Roman pontiff to
obey them. Zacharias ended his long speech with a last exhorta-
tion: ‘Let peace and unity be above being right” *. In this strong
speech the cause of the problems was exactly analysed and the
Roman Church was treated with great respect.
One of those who expressed such a Roman point of view was
Metrophanes, the diehard Ignatian partisan who refused to recog-
nize Photius even after the mandate of Pope John to do so. In
the fifth session a delegation of three bishops, John of Heraclea,
Daniel of Ancyra and George of Nicomedia, aproached him. They
came back with his answer: ““Whatever your holiness (the Roman
legates) conveys to me as the authority of the Pope, is not conve-
nient for me at the moment, because I am sick” °. Despite obvious
suspicion about the Roman legates, this answer expressed great
respect toward the Roman Church and the Pope. “The PopeI
would obey, it seems to say, but I am sick’’. It was a respect—in
this case—which was more verbal than real, because Metrophanes
did not in fact come, as Zacharias had earlier pointed out.

Ibid. 385 B.
wo
= . Ibid. 388 B.
3. Ibid. 500 E.
 157
Pope John’s change of mind regarding Photius was considered
by the Synod as a truly Christian attitude: John followed Christ
in this respect 1. The Acts supply us with many examples of this
point of view. At the end of the first session, the Fathers said:
We all accept Photius as our most holy Patriarch. Those who do not
accept him—just as the three patriarchal sees of the East have accepted
him, and before them, just as the most holy Pope John has accapted
- him—we expel as enemies of the Church and alien to the faith 2.

And at another point:

Many years, to John and Photius *.

Or at the end of the synod:

Many years to John and Photius, the most holy Patriarchs *.

Although it took place in Constantinople, Pope John remained

first.
Before the reading of the signatures at the end of the synod,
the Fathers expressed their thanks to God, that they had found
in Photius such a great bishop and shepherd
through the intervention of our most high and great Emperors, and
through the activity of the most holy Pope John, and Your Holiness
(=the Oriental legates) °.

A particularly respectful remark directed to Rome by one of

the Fathers of the synod, is the comment of Metropolitan Proco-
pius after the reading of the Papal letter to the Emperors. Proco-
pius said:
As we have said often, even before your venerable coming, and before
that admonition which is contained in the letters, we have accepted and
we accept Photius our most holy Patriarch and shepherd; and we wish
to retain him as our own pastor and lord. He has embraced us very
eagerly. This the most holy Pope John did very well, as befits his good-
ness: that he fulfilled the pious desire of our sublime and great Emperors,
and of our humility: he sent Your Holiness, consenting in everything
with us. We thank God, and wish everything good to our pious Emperors,

Ibid. 425 HE.

i Ibid. 392 C. ‘
Ibid. 393 B. Touosg yao%s has first the name of Photius.
Ibid. 512 B.
Ibid. 505 H, 508 A.
 legates and
and to the most holy Pope, and we venerate you too, his
of the Prince of the Apostles, Peter '.
servants who represent the throne

In various instances, however, we see a certain hesitancy when

the legates themselves seemed to over-emphasize this respect or
this position of Rome. The Fathers often expressed themselves
very much in favour of Pope John, but only at particular points,
when it was to their advantage. This suggests that we cannot take
their words too literally, although this was exactly what the Ro-
Roman legates wanted. When the legates asked for the agreement
of the Fathers on the question of Bulgaria, the synod refused and
left the matter to the Emperor 2. Gregory of Ephesus pointed
out that it was for the Emperor to regulate these questions of
jurisdiction. One can give up something and receive compensa-
tion, he said 3. He apparently saw both sees as equal, and not
one subordinated to the other.
At the end of the fifth session the signatures of the Roman
legates were read in translation to the Fathers, because they had
signed in Latin 4. It is interesting to hear the difference of lan-
guage in the signatures and in the reaction to them by the Fathers
of the Synod. Paul of Ancona had signed in the following terms:
Paul the most humble bishop of the holy Church of Ancona, and legate
of the holy Apostolic See, and of my Lord, the most blessed John, supreme
Pontiff and ecumenical Pope of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman
Churches. >

The Synod answered:

. Ibid. 408 E.
ibidaeetact
=
on . Ibid. 420-C.
4. Hereve- Lecuercg, op. cit. LV 586 and HerGeNROETHER, op. cit.
Il 396 have asserted that the Roman legates did not understand the Greek
language. However, see p. 60 note 1 and 2, and p. 107 note 1.
5. Manst XVII 508 A, translated into “Latin: Sanctae Catholicae et
Apostolicae Romanae Ecclesiae summus pontifex et oecumenicus papa”.
That Latin was the original language of the signatures of the Roman legates
is obvious from the Greek &xoot&étov aeyteoéwo for ‘summus pontifex’. Does
this text refer to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which is in Rome,
thus in its local realization; or is the Catholic Church in its fulness only in
Rome? The answer of the Synod would suggest that the Fathers saw in the
signatures of the Roman legates a too close identification between the words
Catholic and Roman.
 159
Blessed be God who through the activity of the Most Holy Pope John
brought unity to his Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church }.

It seems that the Synod refused the Roman Church the exclusive
use of the title “Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic’. They had never-
theless heard and understood it.

The synod showed great respect for Pope John who had had
the courage to consider the true facts, and his strength of mind
in going back on decisions which had been made by his predeces-
sors. The synod appreciated this, and expressed their joy, but they
were well aware of the fact that ‘East and West’ had different
opinions about the content. The aforementioned Procopius even
used this terminology when he said:
Blessed be God who through the goodness . .. of our Lord (the Em-
peror) has brought together from East and West reverend men to col-
lect the dispersed parts of the Church ?.

These statements and examples do not justify the conclusion

that the Synod ascribed to Rome itself any real jurisdictional
power over the other Churches. The Church of Rome possessed
the presidency within the Church. This was not understood in
legal terms, but was rather seen according to the Fathers’ own syn-
odical mentality, in terms of collegiality. This becomes clear from
the acceptance of the canon whereby each Church recognized the
excommunication pronounced by the other °.. The special position,
however, of the Roman Church was guaranteed in clear terms +.

The orvental legates and Rome

In the comments and remarks of the oriental legates we do
not find any special emphasis on the position of the Pope or of
the Church of Rome. Rome was simply one of the great sees, and
was also called a patriarchate *. At the end of the first session
Elias, the legate of Jerusalem, said in connection with Photius’
recognition:

. Ibid. 508 LE.

. [bid 585 B.
Ibid. 497 DE.
. Cf. the end of canon 1 of the Photian synod, App. 1671-1674.
Om
Ne . Mansi XVII 393 B.
160

God therefore honoured the most holy Patriarch Photius, and inspired,
according to his will, the most holy Pope John, and also the other great
pontiffs of the East, and they loved him and declared his pontificate
approved by divine vote ?.

Pope John was one of the great pontiffs, but still received a special
mention; Elias had not spoken of the four patriarchs. The reason
for this was not that the Pope held a higher position, but that the
three oriental patriarchates formed a particularly close unity, to
which the Pope did not belong. He could therefore easily be men-
tioned separately, but this was not necessarily always the case, as
the signatures of the oriental legates show. Basil, bishop of Marty-
ropolis and legate of Antioch accepted Photius, as did his patriarch
and the ‘other’ pontifical sees (which included Rome) ?. Ehias,
the legate of Jerusalem also accepted Photius as did his patriarchs
Theodosius and Elias, and the ‘other’ sees 3. The same pertained
for Cosmas of Alexandria +.

Theodosius the patriarch of Antioch finished his letter with:

May God give you glory in this age and in the age to come through the
prayers of Saint Peter 6 xogu@aiog and all Apostles °.

This reference to Saint Peter had no connection with Rome but

simply referred to Peter whose memory was very dear in Antioch
where he had preached and organized the Church. These examples
show that for the oriental legates the Church of Rome was not
of central importance. This does not mean that these oriental
churches did not value communion with the Roman Church, and
with the Pope, but to them Rome was only one of the great chur-
ches. The church of real importance to them was Constantinople;
there the Emperor lived, and from there they expected help. They
certainly did not accept any meddling in their own freedom from
Rome. When the Roman legates protested against the fact that
Photius had been restored to his see without Rome having been
informed and consulted, Elias of Jerusalem showed his disagree-

. Ibid. 393 A.
Ibid. 509 A.
=
on Ibid. 509 B.
4. Ibid. 509 D.
5. Ibid. 445 C.
 164
ment. He remarked that the vietrdaronthiee had the right to elect
their own patriarchs1.

Photius and Rome

During the synod Photius expressed himself most respect-

fully whenever he mentioned the Pope or the Roman Church,
and he was extremely polite and friendly to the Roman legates.
The reason for this was no doubt his satisfaction over being recog-
nized by Pope John. Photius also particularly wanted to be in
union with the Church of Rome ‘and this would have affected his
attitude towards the Romans; nowhere did he accuse Rome of
being the cause of the troubles in Constantinople which resulted
in the break *. At the first session, Photius sen in his greeting
to the Roman legates:
May our common Lord and God Christ remunerate him (=Pope John)
for his sincere love and genuine affection towards us 3.

Cardinal Peter during the first session also spoke of how much
Pope John wanted to consider Photius as his brother, his conce-
lebrant and fellow-priest. Photius answered that this was his de-
sire too, and that he further wanted him as his ‘spiritual father’ 4.
This has no jurisdictional connotation, but it expressed great res-
pect.
It is understandable that Photius paid much attention to
the influence of Pope John in the restoration of unity. John was
the one “who thus took the rod of the sinners away from the he-
ritage of the just” 5. In this allusion to Psalm 124 (MT:125,3),
we can read a reference to the troubles during the previous years.
The predecessors of Pope John had acted and judged because they
had been the victims of insincere people who had misled them
(namely the diehard Ignatians who had influenced Nicholas and
Hadrian II). Pope John had taken this ‘rod’ away from these
just ones; perhaps we could say that he had cleansed the names
of his predecessors, and so restored Rome to its good name. It

Ibid. 420 D.
No Photius does not refer at ‘any point to his encyclical of 867.
Mansr XVII 380 C.
Ibid. 380 B, see also 381 B, 447 E, 441 A, 498 C, 504 D,. 520 C.
0
ee
or Ibid. 428 B.
162
the
is also possible, however, that it means that John had cleansed
Church (the heritage of the just) in general from the influence of
sinners. In this case it stresses the general pastoral interest of Pope
John VIII.
This preoccupation of Pope John had been known to Photius
—the Patriarch said—for some time, and in this respect John was
truly a disciple of Christ who had also directed himself to the
‘errant and alienated human race’. John therefore was not content
to limit his activity to his own local Church of Rome, but also
expanded his episcopal care to include others '.
Whoever is able to think, knows very well his (=John’s) divine zeal for
the Holy Church, his sincere heart, and his perfect love toward us humble
ones °.

Photius entirely accepted the letter of Pope John *. This

almost seems like a sinister joke: He first changed the letter as
he wanted, and then accepted this altered version. That was not
true. As we have seen, he tried to change the letter so as to make
it accord more with the facts which had been unknown to Pope
John. The alteration was an act of respect of Photius for Pope
John’s care for the whole Church.
In the speech about the circumstances of his second elevation
to the patriarchate—where, as he said, he wanted to speak honestly—
he praised the favourable attitude of Pope John as an element of
his acceptance of his second patriarchate. This was more than the
other Fathers would admit. They tended to limit the influence of
the Pope in the restoration of Photius, while Photius himself did
not 4.

When the synod discussed the question of Bulgaria, Photius

was willing to fall in with Pope John’s wishes, but he pointed to
difficulties which were beyond his power:
If the breadth of my love in the Lord were not against the words of the
Emperor, and if no other canonical reason were to impede me, I should
ensure that the bishops and priests under me agree in this matter. I
should be ready to give you at your request not only the dioceses which
you say were once under Roman jurisdiction, but even what has been

. Ibid. 380 E, 381 note the word émoxibacdar.

. Ibid. 3814 D.
~ Dbide4i7 A.
+ Ibid. 424
PONS (C) 425 BG
 163
never subject to Rome. Because real friendship does not ask what belongs
. to her, but wants to meet the desire of the other ?.

Photius’ answer was that of a man who saw the various aspects
of the problem, and fully respected his fellow patriarch in Rome.
Although the final sentence may seem ironical, in my opinion it
should not be interpreted thus. Photius had already shown his
respect and honesty by neither sending the pallium to anyone in
Bulgaria, nor ordaining there: ““We are -keeping love and peace’’
he said 2. .
When he came to speak about the pallium, Photius indicated
that he had never sent it, “although justice perhaps and the exam-
ple of others would commit everything to us’ 3. Does this mean
that the demands of Rome did not have any legal basis, but that
the relinquishing of the claim to Bulgaria was simply an expres-
sion of Photius’ goodwill? The phrase ‘examples of others’ seems
to be an insinuation. Was Photius referring to the Ignatian Bi-
shops? Had Ignatius sent the pallium to Bulgaria? Photius did
not make any explicit statement.

Photius’ respect for the Church of Rome and to Pope John

in particular, was expressed by his behaviour towards the Roman
legates. He treated them always with consideration and recognized
their special position at the synod. He asked them if the letter of
Theodosius of Jerusalem, which was perhaps a personal letter to
himself, could be considered a part of the Acts of the synod 4.
In the first session Photius greeted the Roman legates. We
have already mentioned this speech ®°. He used some expressions
which could be of greater significance than more language of praise.
Therefore it is necessary that we consider him (=Pope John) as father
and guardian; because he shows such a great care and providence °®.

Pope John did not. merely send his legates once, but many times.
Should someone who cared so much for the Church of God not
receive benevolence and thanks for this? In this attitude Pope
John really followed Christ the first and great pontifex,

. Ibid. 420 AB.

. Ibid. 417 E.
Ibidem.
. Mansi XVII 441 B.
. Page 128:
. Ibid. 380 E.
rwnd
aon
164

_.. and as a true follower of him (=Christ), he, our spiritual father, was
not content to enjoy (only) peace in his own Church, but wanted to see...
if there were some who did not believe in the truth, and he wanted to
admonish them rightly ... to adhere to Christ ..., who is our common
Head, and to come together into his one Body ?.

When someone raised the question of the deportation of the

bishops, Photius told the synod that only two bishops had been
deported; the reason was political. “And what is worse, he said,
they have with uncontrolled mouth and free tongue, and in the
presence of many people, slandered Pope John” *. His high esteem
for Pope John was further expressed at the end of the synod:
what the synod had accomplished was the result of the help of
the Emperor,
and with the consent and approval of our spiritual brother and father,
the most holy Pope of Rome ®.

We have seen in the letters that Photius weakened statements

which seemed to over-stress a Roman point of view. This happened
a few times during the sessions as well:
“Peter visits you’, Cardinal Peter had said at the beginning
of the synod. Photius answered:
May Christ our God through the Prince of the Apostles whom you
mention, have mercy upon all of us, and make us worthy of his King-
dom ?.

In the matter of the absolution of Thomas of Tyre, the Roman

legates had demanded that the case be submitted to Rome; the
synod protested at this. Then Photius said, apparently seeking a
compromise:
Because the Oriental patriarchs ask also absolution for him, we consider
him absolved. If the Pope through his vote wants to share the decision
on absolution, it is even better?.

The legates were happy with this answer: “Oh, but we do not want
to dissent; we confirm your judgement’.
In the fifth session the Roman legates stated that Pope John
wanted those who returned to unity with Photius to be absolved:

Ibid. 381 ABC.

Ibid. 417 C.
. Ibid. 504 D.
Ibid. 380 C.
wn Ibid.
fe
aor 441 A.
 165

pater are not able to do this, they told the synod. Procopius
jumped up: “If they cannot eon ties, what else can they do?” The
legates answered with a very strong statement: ‘““The Ecumenical
and Apostolic Pope John who has received this power from Peter,
the Prince of the Apostles, also gave the most holy Patriarch Pho-
tius the same power to bind and to loose’ 1. Photius acted as if
he had not heard this and changed the subject. He asked the Roman
legates a practical question about bishops who have become monks.
Could they return to their dioceses and continue their work as
bishops ? 2
Photius therefore showed very clearly that he was aware of
the differences between East and West, but that he did not regard
this is a justification for schism and disunity. The unity of the
Church was too dear to him. We accordingly have to appreciate
his eulogy to the ates at the end of the synod as coming from his
heart:
Especially in your great zeal to fulfil all his (=John’s) mandates, you
have taken no small care and burden upon yourselves, in order to take
away the weed and scandals which the Evil One did grow in this holy
Church of God 3%.

It hinted at the suppleness and. diplomacy of the legates which

had helped so much to make this synod a success: Unity had been
restored.

It certainly might surprise us that in 879 we find nowhere

any reference to the Synod of 867 where Photius reacted so vio-
lently against Pope Nicholas, and may even have deposed and
condemned him. How ean we then explain the attitude of Photius
in 879-880 which is so mild and so respectful towards Rome?
The reason has to be sought—as Dvornik summarizes in his
treatment of this issue *— in the fact that the significance of this
elipice 5 013
= bide >04nGs
= + Ibid: 505 GC:
won

4. Dvornikx 129; Dvornik also speaks adequately about the little trea-
tise on the Roman primacy (Dvornik 125f.), IIpd¢ tobe A€yovtag wo H Pouy
tmea@toc Oedvoc, the Photian authorship of which he does not accept. On the
same subject see Jucir, “Photius et la primauté de Saint Piérre et du pape’,
in Bessarione 35(1919) 126f, and 36(1920) 314f, who understands it as having
originated in Photian circles. The treatise is published in PaAan-Toran, 2%y-
Tayma THY ieo@y xardvev, t. 5, “AOFvor 1854, 409-414.
166

synod of 867 has been greatly overrated by both historians and

theologians. At a time when religion and politics were so closely
related, the activities of Pope Nicholas in Bulgaria were looked
upon with suspicion, both by the Imperial court and by Photius,
who in the early years of his Patriarchate had not forgotten his
period as chancellor ?.
Nevertheless, perhaps the importance of the theological side
of this issue has to be emphasized more strongly than is Dvornik’s
interpretation. Both the Encyclical to the oriental patriarchs *,
and the homily at the end of the synod of 867 *, witness to the
ereat zeal of Photius for orthodoxy. His protest in 867 against the
activities of the missionaries was based on fear for the purity of
orthodoxy. Orthodoxy was the main question at the Synod of
867; it was the proclamation of the triumph over all heresies 4.
If judgement were passed on Pope Nicholas in 867 — we have
only the information of the biased Ignatian sources, and even
Pope Hadrian II never spoke about ‘condemnation’ or “deposi-
tion’ >—then this should not be given too much attention. Be-
sides, even the synodal condemnation and deposition of Pope John
XII in 963 and his replacement by Pope Leo VIII did not arouse
too much opposition, and was accepted®. Perhaps this judge-
ment upon Nicholas was no more than the disapproval of his
Bulgarian policy and an answer to the complaints from the West
to which Photius had referred in his Encyclical’. The ‘offensive’
language which was used on both sides* was part of the ‘diplo-
macy’ of those days.
It is our view, therefore, that the previous attitude of Photius
towards the Church of Rome should not be exaggerated, given his
milder behaviour at the Synod of 879-880.

14. Dvornik 112; See I. N. KapMipH, «O LIlaterkeyng Dartiog xal n ev

Kovotavtwourdret aivodog tod 867», év “ExxAnoia 31(1954) 227.
2. PG 102, 721-742.
3. Manco, The homilies of Photius, 306; see also 297{f.
4. Ibid. 306.
5. See, for example, the speech of Pope Hadrian II at the Roman sy-
nod of 869, Mansi XVI 123.
6. OcirsKkos, Konstantinopol’skie Sobory 869-870 it 879-880 godoy...,
DO eee
Je) Gs 02 a7 ey Mino
8. Cf. for example, the Responsa Nicolai papae ad consulta Bulgarorum,
PL 119, 978-1016.
 PART THREE
_ REFLECTION

CHAR ER Vi

CHURCH AND SYNOD

One of the warnings which the great English historian Arnold
Toynbee conveys to all who are involved in history is that they
should never yield to the temptation to isolate a particular event
and consider it is a closed unit. It is a temptation we can hardly
avoid. We tend to be fascinated so much by our subject of research
that we forget its historical context, its relation to its historical
milieu. We can write the history of England, the history of the
French Revolution, or even the history of a council. According
to Toynbee, these are not intelligible units of historical research.
These nations, these periods or events appear to be only the va-
rious reactions to a more general challenge. Only within its general
context, or, in the words of Toynbee, only by examining ‘general
societies’, which are the real units of historical study, can a special
period or event be properly evaluated '.

This certainly is true for such a short event as the synod of

879-880. Jt can be seen only in its context and against its historical
background, given its specific problem. It no way can we accept
answers from a synod or council to questions which were not asked.
We are not allowed to read our modern controversies into a council
where these questions did not play any part. We have to see a
synod in its own context.
When we examine the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople
in 681, we can easily point to its purpose. It came together to solve
the disunity which had originated in the controversy on Mono-

4. A. ToynBeeE, A study of History. Vol. I, London 19357, 11, 13-16

(esp. 15), 44-45.
168

thelism. There was thus a clearly defined purpose: the solution of

a dogmatic question '.
A totally different picture is presented by the Council which
came together in 787 at Nicea. Here the faith of the Church was
at stake. In the matter of Iconoclasm the Emperor had been wrong,
when in 729 he had forbidden the venerations of Icons. Thus the
Church of Constantinoplé had entered a hopeless situation, cut
off from the rest of the Church. The whole Churc —hand not only
Rome — stood against Constantinople ®. The synod’s function
was to restore the orthodoxy of the Church of Constantinople.
Again, the council of 869 had another physionomy. The new
political situation in Byzantium —where Basil had ascended the
imperial throne through murder —seemed to ask for confirmation
from the Pope. A council was called together, in which the influence
of Rome was very strong. It was the Pope who wanted this Council
and who left the convocation to the Emperor. The purpose of this
Council was therefore a little different depending on whether one
looks at it from a Roman or Byzantine point of view. As far as
Rome was concerned, it had only to ratify the decisions already
taken at the local synod of Rome in 869. Constantinople, however,
did not consider this synod to be the mouthpiece of Rome. It
wanted to reopen Photius’ case independently and to find a new
solution to the problems which divided the Church of Constanti-
nople °.
All these synods had their own character and came together
for particular reasons; the Synod of 879-880 was no exception. It
was a Council of Union, a synod to seal the unity within the Church
of Constantinople after the many years of fighting and contention;
a synod too, to seal the communion with the Church of Rome, with
whom relations had been very tense. This unity was achieved,

1. W. De Vries, SJ., “Die Struktur der Kirche gemass dem III. Konzil
von Konstantinopel (680-681)”, in Volk Gottes, Festgabe fiir Josef Hoéfer,
Hrsg. von R. Baumer und H. Dotcn, Freiburg i Br. 1967, 263 (quoted as
Konstantinopel 111).
2. W. De Vrizs, SJ., “Die Struktur der Kirche gemass dem II. Konzil
von Nicaa (787)”, in OCP 33(1967) 48 (quoted as Nicda II).
3. W. De Vrirs, SJ., “Die Struktur der Kirche gemass dem IV. Konzil
von Konstantinopel (869-870)”, in Archisum Historiae Pontificiae 6(1968)
8f (quoted as Konstantinopel lV).
 169
even if it needed a few years more before peace and rest would
fully return within the Church of Constantinople itself. Relations
with Rome were restored on a more permanent basis.

On the other hand we can do more than merely clarify the

specific purpose of these Synods. They were also various reactions
to a more general challenge, as Toynbee said. They are part of
the total history of the Church, and are in fact crystallizing moments
of self-realization throughout the centuries, moments of ‘Kirche
sein’ (being Church).. To describe this moment of Church-tn-life,
constituted by this Synod of 879, is the purpose of this reflection.
In talking about the Church, history confronts us with many points
of view, many attitudes and changing visions, but all these together
give us the answer to the question, ‘What is the Church?’, and pro-
vide in fact, a theology of the Church. Such a theology —‘what can
divinely be said of the Church (Theo-logia) ?” — needs such close-up
studies in depth, as the analysis of the Synod of 879-880, on the
condition, however, that it is not forgotten that such an examina-.
tion gives only a partial view of the whole |.

14. LOCAL CHURCH AND, UNIVERSAL CHURCH

For the patriarchal churches of Alexandria, Antioch and Je-

rusalem the Church was a communion of local churches. Although
they were severely limited in their freedom because of the Moslem
domination, they were highly conscious of their connection with
their sister churches, especially those suffering the same conditions.
The Synod shows that they were in frequent contact with each
other for mutual encouragement and support, and yet no parti-
cular one of them considered itself above the others. In their hope
for materiai and spiritual support they had their eyes fixed espe-
cially upon the Church of Constantinople, and they gave it very
flattering names, such as ‘the Great Light’. This expressed no at-
titude of submission. They remained themselves, conscious of
their independence. The legate of Jerusalem for instance called
his Church ‘Mother of all Churches’ as an expression and demon-
stration of pride and loyalty. Similar expressions are also to be
found attached to their signatures. Nevertheless they recognized

1. De Vaiss, Konstantinopel II, 262.

170
that
that the Church was greater than their own local Church. For
them *.
reason they were pleased when the others agreed with
s’
They could therefore praise Photius as ‘Foundation of the Churche
as the ‘sacred head of the Body of the Church’ . “It is known eve-
rywhere that the Holy Church of God grows stronger under your
inspired care and pastoral vigilance’ 2. It must, however, be
born in mind that such eulogies were certainly prompted partly
by ideas that help might be forthcoming. Nevertheless they do
contain the belief that the local Church realizes itself only in its
connection with the Universal Church. All the members together
build up the body. It is self-evident that they were thinking of
the words of Saint Paul, that if one member suffers the whole body
is in pain UJ Cor 12:26ff).

The bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople were in

totally different circumstances. They were not under Moslem do-
mination. They did not make contacts with their sister churches,
because they needed help, but because they valued the commun-
ion itself. Their appreciation is without motives of opportunism,
and they were happy that unity was restored. “We have to give
thanks to God for such a great and complete harmony and peace”’ °.
At the same time they defended jealously their independence and
their own identity. They had no need of letters, either from Popes,
or from oriental patriarchs, in order to accept Photius as their
hierarch ?.
When Photius declared himself willing to accept the Roman
regulation that laymen should not be promoted immediately to
the episcopacy, he was speaking from his personal concern for
the merit of future bishops. So his formulation of the canonical
sanctions was stricter than the Roman version of the Papal let-
ters ®, The Byzantine participants of the synod however, protested.
They certainly were in favour of good bishops, but they saw a
danger in this regulation. They were afraid of yielding their right
to decide for themselves who was going to be their patriarch. Let

. Mansi XVII 408 D.

. Ibid. 441 D.
. Ibid. 449 B.
. Ibid. 484 B.
-—
WON
or . App. 603ff CV and RV.
 174

every Church keep its own usages in this respect, they said. If they
found someone worthy among the curial magistrates they could
not see, why they should look for some one less worthy, merely
because the first one worked at the curia }.
For the bishops of the Byzantine patriarchate the Church
is thus a communion of various local churches, with their own
rights and customs. All attempts to diminish this independence
provoked an almost automatic reaction of protest.

At the time of the synod of 879-880 this local Church however

is not so much the diocese, the local episcopal Church, as it had
been for Ignatius of Antioch 2, but one of the ‘great pontifical
churches’, the patriarchates. This shows that in those days the
idea of the pentarchy was strongly established. The Church was
the communion of the five great patriarchates®. When the Acts
and the. letters speak about the episcopal sees, the emphasis is
on the places where a bishop exercises his function, or on the fun-
ction itself, hut without any reference to the particular character
of these local Churches. Bishops are appointed and translated, and,
according to the letters, the influence of the Emperor and the
Patriarch is very great. Even when local synods are mentioned,
it is always the synods of the Patriarch and his bishops which are
meant *. Centralizing tendencies were thus active in the East
as well. The influence of Constantinople grew ever more powerful,
especially under strong patriarchs such as Photius.

4. Mansi XVII 489.

2. J. Cuoin, CSsR., De spiritualiteit van de Ignatiaanse bisschopsidee,
Nijmegen 1938; 1. A. Zuzioyaa, ‘H évdtys tic éxxdnotas év tH Ovia Edyaguotia
wal TO emvoxdnm xata Tovds ToEic ME@toVvs ai@vas, *AVFvar 1965.
3. Y. Concar, L’Ecclésiologie du haut Moyen-Age, Paris 1968, 379ff;
Dvornik, Byzance et la primauté romaine, 89-110; F. Dvornik, The Idea of
Apostolicity in Byzantium and the legend of the Apostle Andrew, Cambridge,
4958, 277 shows how the idea of the pentarchy perpetually grew stronger.
For the pentarchy at the Council of Constantinople IV (869-870), see DE
Vries, Konstantinopel 1V, 34ff; in the eighth century the patriarchates served
as a symbol of unity within the Church without isolation from the other
bishops, more a spiritual structure than a jurisdictional entity, see P.
O’ConneLt, SJ., The ecclesiology of St. Nicephorus I (758-828) Patriarch of
Constantinople, Rome 1972, 151ff, esp. 159.
4. Cf. the letter of Michael of Alexandria, Manst XVII 436 A.
172

In the West the ecclesiastical development followed a dif-

ferent pattern. Because Rome was the only Apostolic See in the
West }, it had acquired great influence even in political matters.
Kings and princes in the West looked with respect and obedience
to the See of Peter. Even when this political power was in fact
not so strong, Rome remained the centre of the Church and of
Western Christianity. The polarization of two linguistic areas,
the Greek East and the Latin West enforced this mentality. The
word Church therefore meant not so much the local church, nor
even the local Church of Rome or Constantinople, but the Univer-
sal Church over which Rome exercised its supervision *. Pope
John saw it as his vocation to safeguard the unity of the Church,
which Christ himself had entrusted to him. This was the unity of
the Universal Church. He accordingly considered himself entitled
to involve himself in the troubles of Constantinople, and appealed
to the Emperor not to listen to those people who were trying to
tear the Garment of Christ and bring division into the (Universal)
Church.

2. THE POSITION OF THE CHURCH OF ROME

About their relation to Rome the Oriental patriarchates were

not very explicit. They certainly ascribed great importance to
communion with the Roman Church, but they did so only from their
conviction that all the churches throughout the world shoulsd tay
in communion with each other. Rome was not paramount in their
consideration. It did not belong to their group and had different
day to day circumstances. Although it was one of the great sees,
they did not have special relations with it. No great ecclesiological
significance can therefore be attached to their mentioning Rome
separately from the other patriarchates. Even a reference to St.
Peter did not direct their thoughts to Rome; their thoughts would
then go to the Church of Antioch where Peter had lived and prea-
ched °. From their letters we even get the impression that they
did not know the exact cause of the difficulties between the Church

1. P. Srepuanou, SJ., “Sedes Apostolica, Regia Civitas’, in OCP 33

(1967) 563-682.
2. Mansi XVII 480 C.
SonloKd ac one
 173

of Constantinople and Rome. For them the restoration of unity

was as Important as unity.

For Photius and the Byzantine bishops the matter was dif-
ferent; they attributed great value to unity with the Church of
Rome, because of their special respect for this Church. The whole
synod, its preparation, the alteration of the papal letters and the
sessions themselves demonstrate Photius’ own high appreciation
of the importance of communion with the Roman Church?.
Photius shared the conviction of the other bishops that there
should be unity among Christians and among the various local
Churches, and was consequently pleased to be able to welcome
the Roman legates publicly: ““Thanks to our great God, who kept
John safely, and gave him back to us in peace’ *. Photius was
grateful that Pope John had done so much for him in his resto-
ration, and expressed his fervent thanks many times *. He called
John his spiritual father, his brother, a follower of Christ and
praised his love and affection. The Patriarch so appreciated his
friendship with Pope John that he was willing to yield to him the
jurisdiction of the diocese of Bulgaria *.
This personal relationship is based on Photius’ respect for
the Roman Church, for which there is considerable evidence. In
the alteration of the letters Photius preserved many respectful
expressions in the address to the Roman Church. It was for him
the Church of Saint Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. Further,
his homilies reveal a special veneration for Saint Peter. A few
examples will illustrate, this. He calls him: ‘Chief of the apostolic
choir, and foundation rock of the Church’ >. ‘“Key-bearer of the
Kingdom of Heaven’ ®, ‘the first of the disciples and the key-
bearer of Heaven’ 7, ‘Peter was thy (the Emperor’s) adviser,

4. E.g. Ibid. 504 CD.

2. Ibid. 380 A.
3. Ibid. 380 B; 381 B; 417 E; 441 A; 493 C; 504 D; 520 CE
4. Ibid. 420 AB. There is also an example of this affection of Photius
for Pope John in his Adyog zegi tijs tod “Ayiov IIvebuatos wustaywyias, PG 102,
380, n. 89.
5. Manco, The homilies of Photius, 50; Dyornik, The idea of Apostoli-
OW 6 eee Ze
6. Manco, op. cit. 50.
7. Mbid 459:
174
to be
the key-bearer of the heavenly gates, proclaimed by Truth
of the faith, Peter, the chief of the
the Rock and the foundation
the
disciples’ ®. Yet another instance of Photius’ respect for
Roman Church is the fact that he had written to Pope John re-
questing him to take care of various problems. This is implied by
Pope John’s reply ?. In this respect Photius followed the con-
temporary custom of appealing to Rome in disciplinary questions.
This is not surprising, for his friends Gregory Asbestas, Zacharias
of Chalcedon and Theophilus of Amorium had also appealed to
Rome, and had shown that they accepted the third and fourth
canons of the Council of Sardica which authorized such appeals °.
There is then Photius’ attitude towards the Roman legates.
They were the legates of his friend Pope John, but they had also
come to represent the Church of Rome. At the synod they held
the place of honorary presidents, and Photius treated them as
such 4, It is, in addition, not out of the question that his attitude
was influenced by a desire for a more independent position vis-
A-vis the Emperor. This could explain why Photius in the Byzan-
tine version of the letter of Pope John to the Emperor emphasized
so strongly the independent position of Pope and Patriarch. He
saw in Pope John—and in the Popes in general —a pattern of
behaviour in ecclesiastical affairs which appealed to him, and which
he wished to emulate. Photius was therefore willing to accept
the honorary position of the Pope and of the Roman Church, but
as soon as this papal position gave the impression of interfering
with the internal affairs of his own Church of Constantinople,
he hesitated. Terminology in the papal letters which implied too
much papal influence in the Constantinopolitan Church was
changed. Photius did not want to be called ‘devotus’ to Rome ®.
‘Moderation’ is another term which apparently implied too much
papal authority ®. Such alterations have to be distinguished from
those changes which were simply corrections. Sometimes the in-

1. Ibid. 312, in the homily which Photius gave at the end of the synod
of 867.
i) pee Apps 4124) Rive
. Dvornik, Byzance et la primauté romaine, 97f.
. E.g. Mansi XVII 441 B.
. App. 879ff.
aS
w
Oe . App. 979 RV.
 AUD
formation of Pope John was considered wrong, and the adaptations
suggested that Pope John would have made them himself, if he
had understood the situation in Constantinople better.
There were, however, expressions in the letters where Pope
John dealt with the Churchof Constantinople in an authoritative
way. Frequently such passages have been preserved or changed
only very slightly. We ought not to read these passages with our
modern theological concepts of papal primacy. For Photius they
were expressions of the papal pastoral care of Pope John who did
not limit himself to his own local Church. Pope John, as Photius
saw it, was showing him what was the proper function of the
Patriarch. Such care should not be exercised by the Emperor, as
was the case in fact, but by the priests '. Photius saw here sup-
port for independence from the Emperor which he aimed at him-
self.

Photius’ colleagues in the episcopacy, although they were

not tied to Pope John by personal friendship, also showed great
respect for the Church of Rome. They considered John a genuine
Christian who was not intransigent, but willing to yield. The Church
of Rome had clearly a different position from that of the oriental
patriarchates. Rome was the capital of the Empire and its Church
enjoyed the reputation of uninterrupted orthodoxy. Besides, it
was the city of St. Peter, the prince of the Apostles, and the adap-
tation of the Papal letters confirmed the honorary position of
Rome. Rome’s consent had therefore a_ special meaning ?.
Because of their respect for the Church of Rome and their grati-
tude for John’s cooperation in the restoration of ecclesiastical
unity ® the Fathers of the synod recognized the honorary posi-
tion of the Roman legates. They became irritated, however, and
protested, when these legates gave the impression of demanding
more influence, or greater authority. The absolution of Thomas
of Tyre was not a matter for Pope John—as the legates maintained—
but for Photius, because it was against him that Thomas had

1. Cf. the letter of Pope John to the Emperors, App. 479ff CV and
686ff RV.
2. Cf. V. Peri, J Concili e le Chiese, Roma 1965.
3. Manst XVII 388 C.
176

sinned !. The oriental sees wanted communion with Photius not

as obedience to Rome, but as obedience to the God’s will that the
Church should be one 2. The letters of Pope John were accepted
because of their reasonableness, and not because of the authority
of the Pope: ‘as far it is to the honour of God...’ %. Rome had
not restored the unity, but had rather accepted the realized unity.
By making friendship with someone who had been against him,
Pope John had given a fitting gesture of his greatness. If he had
not done so, however, he would have been in the wrong, the synod
suggested 4. Finally, the Byzantine Patriarchate did not need
the permission of Pope John to, accept a patriarch *®. The By-
zantine bishops accordingly reacted each time that the Roman
Chur—ch either in the words of the Pope, or through his legates—
seemed to impose itself. They did not understand, but reacted with
irritation, for they saw the two local Churches as equal. Rome
should not therefore consider itself the sole Catholic Church. The
Catholicity of the Church is a divine, and not a papal preroga-
tive®, or as Zacharias of Chalcedon expressed it, Christ is the
first hierarch in the Church, not the Pope ’.

These comments and reactions reveal a clear understanding

about the Church. The Church is a communion of the various
churches in the world, living together in love, respect and peace.
Each church—in fact each patriarchal church—has its own rights,
its own traditions and privileges. Although interference from others
is rejected, there is nevertheless the conviction that contact is
necessary. It is a bond of love which binds the various churches,
and involves fraternal care for others. In this brotherhood of
churches the Church of Rome has a special place, the first place.
As long as its fraternal care does not impose itself, and respects
the independence of the other churches, it is gladly accepted °.

—_= . Ibid. 440 E.

bo Ibid. 480 C.
Ibid. 456 C.
Ibid. 425 E.
Ibid 408 D 409 D 410 E.
Ibid. 508.
SOD
WwW
er
o Ibid. 389.
8. Cf. the references to this in the commonitorium, which have been pre-
served App. 1478-1479 and in the papal letter App. 1198-1199 CV,
 We

In the interpretation of this pastoral care there was a differ-

ence between Photius and the other Byzantine bishops. This
has been noticed already. Photius was more aware than his col-
leagues, of the existence of two different mentalities in East and
going. He had read the papal letters in the original version, he had
probably often met the legates in personal conversation, and be-
cause of his educational background he was better equipped to
see the various trends and tendencies within the Byzantine world.
Evidently these differences did not disturb him; they were not
wont to spoil the success of the unity that had been achieved. In
his mind East and West could have their own opinions, their own
ideas and customs; and the Roman example inspired him to take
a more independent stand before the Emperor. This attitude
explained why Photius left some expressions in the letters of Pope
John untouched, but also why he side-stepped painful situations
during the sessions of the synod. He found for a example a compro-
mise when he foresaw some irritation in the matter of the absolu-
tion of Thomas of Tyre; he and the Pope together would absolve
Thomas +. When the legates pushed the Roman point of view,
too strongly, he changed the subject of the discussion and avoided
a dispute ?, although he had clearly understood what Cardinal
Peter had said. Expressions which were used by the Roman le-
gates but were incomprehensible to the Byzantine audience, were
changed without denying their original content. Photius only
aimed to avoid a short circuit in the relations. Again, he knew that
Pope John did not abolish or annul the synodof 869, but he made
him say this in order that Pope John would be understood and
respected by the Byzantine bishops °.

To summarize we can say that Photius and the Byzantine

bishops respected the Roman Church as the first in the pentarchy
of the five great patriarchates 4. This primacy is not based upon

. Manst XVII 441 A.

> Lbidy 50a:
=
won. In the alteration of the papal letters.
4. See Dvyornik, Byzance et la primauté romaine, 92; Dvornix, The
idea of Apostolicity ..., 268. In this way must be understood also the impor-
tance of the confirmation bv the Pope, over and above that of the other pa-
triarchs, cf. Mansi XVI 202 AB, E. See also De Vries, Konstantinopel IV,
12
178

greater authority but is of a charismatic character; the primacy

of the oldest brother in the family of Churches. It is therefore not
justified to consider the Photian Synod of 879-880 as the rebuttal
of the primacy of the Roman Church as has been suggested by
various Orthodox authors 1, but in the same way it would be a
great anachronism to make Photius the partisan of an understand-
ing of primacy as developed later—and even existed already (see
next paragraph)—within the Roman Church, as some Catholic
scholars have suggested %. The truth here lies somewhere in the
middle. The authority of Rome is founded upon the Christ’s words
to Peter, but also upon charity among the Churches, upon respon-
sibility and care for their well being, should disorder threaten.
It is a ‘paternal’ authority rather than one of juridical origin, a
primacy of obligation rather than of rights; it offers to the Churches
the guarantee of faithfulness to the life of Christ, and assurance
of salvation °.

In Rome itself the place of the Roman Church within the

universal church was seen totally differently *. In his letters
Pope John referred many times to his special position, and the
special position of his See within the Church. The letter to the Em-
perors was especially strong in this respect. Christ gave Peter a
particular power, when he told him: “I give you the keys of hea-
ven’ >, In a very special way the Pope is the successor of Peter,

22f., and W. De Vries, SJ., “The College of Patriarchs’, in Concilium 1

(1965) n. 8, 40.
1. Xp. WlamAaonoyaoy, To zomtetoy tod éxioxdstov Pouns, “AOhva. 1930,
171; 1. KapmipH, Ta doywatixa xal ovuBodixa wrynueta..., TOouos I, 267.
J. Karmiris, «The Schism of the Roman Church», in Osodoyia 21(1950)
400, 424f. A. OgoAapoy, ‘H odola tig “OeIodo&iac, “ADHvar 1961, 217, does
not even mention the synod of 879-880, apparently because at that synod
the unity between both Churches was restored. He takes the synod of 867 as
the turning point of Church history.
2. Dvornik has tends to show that Photius accepted the Roman primacy
in a more or less modern way, cf. Dvorntk, Byzance et la primauté romaine,
89ff. See also TENNAaloy, Ai zegi icootd Bwtiov xoicers ..., art. cit. 66.
3. JoANNOU, art. cit. 490.
4. On the influence of the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals on the papal
policies of this period, see Ivantsov-PxaAtonovy, art. cit. n. 2841, 310 which
is, however, a little-one sided. See also Concar, L’Ecclésiologie..., passim.
5. App. 320-335 RV and 1193-1196 RV.
 179

he is Peter himself, always present within the Church, as its Spl-

ritual father.
The Roman legates were very aware of the function which
their master held within the Church. They placed him clearly
above Photius, and at the synod they strongly advocated this
interpretation. In their person it was Peter himself who visited
the Church of Constantinople; for this reason the legates acted
themselves as presidents of the meeting, and convinced of their
authority, they asked the opinion of the other members of the
synod. In their signatures at the end of the synod they ascribed
to their master a position not merely honorary. They accepted the
decisions of the synod not only because of the synod itself, but in
view of the approval of the Pope?.
In their appraisal of this primacy they did not make any
distinction between the person of the Pope and the See of Rome.
Pope John had a function of authority, and it was not only a mat-
ter of the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome is the first see,
and therefore the bishop of this see is the first bishop.
In this atmosphere they accomplished the mission for which
they had come to Constantinople, and in which they were instructed
to act with authority. They had a clear aim: to take away from
the Church of Constantinople the scandals of schism and error and
to restore unity in this Church. They were able to do this, because
it was Rome’s right and obligation to take such responsibility.
Unity meant for them unity under the one shepherd, Pope John.
Once unity with Rome has been restored, the whole Church enjoys
unity 2. In this way they interpreted the Pope’s ideas very well.
It was his care for all Churches which enabled him to restore with
authority the person of Photius to the patriarchal throne. Other
Popes had done this before *. In view of his authority Pope John
was willing—for the sake of unity—to go back on the condemnation
of Photius by the council of 869: Photius would be absolved. This
example shows such a conviction of authority, that it even over-
‘looked the fact that a synodical decision should be synodically

4. Mansi, 508 AB.

2. Ibid. 389 BC. ;
3. Also Pope Nicholas had been surprised that Ignatius had been deposed
in 861 (and 859) without the previous consultation of Rome, Dvornik 75.
See also Concar, L’Ecclésiologie ..., 234.
180

retracted. Pope John looked at it purely from the Roman point

of view ?.
This same strong authority was expressed in the condition
which Pope John gave for Photius’ restoration. Photius should
ask for mercy, and Pope John would then restore him and absolve
him from his condemnation. In the analysis it has been explained
that no moral qualification about the behaviour of Photius was
implied, but it certainly showed that Pope John considered him-
self the superior. In the alteration by Photius this element is im-
plicitly denied. Photius changed this condition, because it simply
would not have been understood at all by the Byzantine Fathers
of the synod.

Constantly the Synod gives examples of the Roman convic-

tion of being able to act with great authority. The legates think
they should give Photius jurisdiction to absolve his opponents ®.
It is understandable that the Fathers did not appreciate such a
procedure, and protested.
Still there are a few instances when the Roman legates seemed
to forgot for a moment their very Roman attitude. Although in
these cases the primacy of their master was never directly at stake,
it shows that they had come to understand better the different
situation in Constantinople.
They realized that Photius had probably been chosen rightly.
He was in possession of the throne, and it was not really Pope John
who had restored Photius. Photius was in fact the Patriarch, even
without the intervention of Rome. They had come to know Pho-
tius personally and realized that he was worthy of his position.
‘For a long time Constantinople has not known such a man’ 3.

The synod of 879-880 reveals surprisingly clearly how different-

ly Rome and Constantinople understood the Church as an admin-
istrative entity. For the West the Pope—or the Roman Church—

1. App. 1290 RV ‘lege constringimus’ suggests that Pope John saw the
criterion of authority in the person of the Pope himself rather than in tradi-
tion. The Constantinopolitan version changed it in such a way as to give the
authority to tradition itself.
2. Mansrt XVII, 501 BC, 505 B.
3. Ibid. 468 A.
 184

was the head of the Churches. Everybody was obliged to follow this
Roman Church, and its Pope, for this was the will of God.
For this reason the Pope rightly exercised care for the Church of
Constantinople, and the position of the Roman Church was thus
more than a honorary degree of presidency. The Byzantine under-
standing was very different. The great pontifical Churches, the
patriarchates lived in .harmony and unity, and were of equal
importance. Because of historical and traditional reasons, and
because of the pre—eminence St. Peter, the Church of Rome
enjoyed and deserved a special place of honour. The equality of
the various Churches did not exclude the idea that each should
feel responsible for the well-being of the others, but such pastoral
responsibility should not take the form of interference. Photius
was especially favourable towards the pastoral responsibility which
Rome exercised, because it expressed a certain independence from
the all-penetrating influence of the Emperor.

The Synod of 879-880 did not fully fathom the implications

involved in these two different outlooks. The Fathers were not
aware of the dangers of these opposing opinions and did not foresee
in which direction they were likely to develop. Therefore we do
not find any formal rejection of one of the two opinions. The desire
for unity prevailed. Later history has shown how tragic it has been
that these opinions—which were perhaps not as contractory as
history has made them—were not discussed fully at a time when
unity was still a fact.

3. UNITY OF THE CHURCH

The restoration of unity was the reason for the convocation

of the Synod of 879-880. More precisely, perhaps, it celebrated
peace once more in the Church of God. Pope John’s good-
will and benevolence were, as his letters witnessed, inspired by
his desire for unity, and for this purpose he had sent his legates;
he considered it his own task to restore unity and peace, as an
expression of his pastoral care for the well-being of the Church.
The Roman legates had understood their mission in respect to

4. Ibid. 480 C. For the development of this idea in the West, see ConGar,
L’Ecclésiologie ..., 156ff, 167ff (Hinemar of Rheims), 170ff.
182

this unity: they had come to take the scandals from the Church.
Disunity is one of those scandals, which tears apart the Garment
of Christ 1.
Photius too attached great importance to the restoration of
unity, and at the synod he frequently expressed his Joy in this
connection. He particularly valued in this context the renewal
of communion with Pope John. It was this desire for unity which
urged Photius to give so much attention to winning back the sup-
port of his Ignatian opponents.
The same can be said of the other Fathers of the synod. They
rejoiced in the coming of the Roman legates who expressed the
consent of the Pope with the unity they had reached. In their opinion
the restoration of unity was directly connected with the acceptance
of Photius as their Patriarch. To them apparently unity within
the Church was so evidently necessary, that they did not spend
any time discussing this subject as such. Unity would be realized,
as soon as everyone had accepted Photius. Although it was not
explicitly stated, it is clear that the synod considered unity an
essential characteristic of the Church. If broken, this unity should
be restored. It was beyond their scope to ask ecclesiological ques-
tions and no distinct concept of ecclesiology or of other essential
issues emerged at the synod. To them the disunity, the wrangling
about Ignatius and Photius, and the interference of the Roman
Church had been matters of lack of information, of ‘scandal’,
of ‘schism’, a matter of discipline. The underlying ecclesiological
problem of the criterion of unity, or of the authority within the
Church, was not understood. The solution to their problem was
disciplinary, because their problem itself was disciplinary: the
acceptance of Photius by all. As true sons of the Empire they as-
cribed this solution mainly to the Emperor, who had demanded
and convoked this synod to settle the matter once and for all,
and to restore unity. This had been achieved.
In the letter of the Pope to the Emperor, in both the original
version and in the adaptation, we find a description of unity which,
because it appears in both versions, may be quoted as the common
conviction of East and West: “God is one, Baptism is one, our

1. This is connected with the understanding that the Church cannot

be split in itself, cf. De Vries, Nicda II, 54ff and De Vries, Konstantinopel
IV, 34.
 183

faith is one; we are al one in Christ. Thus all (who are separated)
will be one with us. No longer shall it be said, ‘I am of Peter, I am
of Paul, I am of Apollos’. We all belong to Christ” 1.

This unity means first of all unity in the same faith. Photius
was a strong defender of the purity of doctrine. In his own family
he had experienced how much pain it could cost to care about
orthodoxy. His father had endured prison because of his faithful-
ness to the Icons. Photius himself lived in a time when orthodoxy
was gaining its hard victory over Iconoclasm. Iconoclasm serious-
ly threatened the reality of the incarnation, and defence of icons
could consequently be understood as a proof of orthodoxy, as had
been the case in the acceptance of Tarasius as Patriarch 2. Photius
might even have been in charge of the restoration of the mosaic icon
of the Mother of God in the apse of the aghia Sophia. Where ortho-
doxy was concerned, Photius was the true spokesman of the By-
zantine Bishops. To a far greater extent than in the West the East
had been the scene of heated controversies which threatened the
purity of the Gospel. The bishops were even forced to defend their
orthodoxy against their own Emperors who favoured Iconoclasm.
Their sensitivity in this matter was thus very understandable.
The West also attached great value to the purity of faith,
but in fact concentrated more on the question of devotion to the
Church of Rome °. At the synod of 879-880 the Fathers’ care for
purity of doctrine emerged in the horos (the formula of faith of
the synod) which they proclaimed. This horos cannot be understood
as a dogmatic definition, a proclamation of a dogma, such as
happened at the western councils, or the proclamations of 1854,
1870 and 1950. It was rather the true expression of the ecclesia-
stical feeling—the éxxAyo.notixdv gedvnua—of the synod. In the
horos the Fathers expressed their consciousness of being Church;

4. App. 747ff RV and CV; Photius added the unicity of God (cf. Eph.
4:5) as an argument in favour of the unity of the Church, perhaps more in
keeping with Eastern ideas.
2. App. 1277-1278 CV.
3. The iconoclastic controversy had not deeply touched the West, where
the real issue was not understood, cf. H. G. Beck, “Die griechische Kirche
im Zeitalter des Ikonoklasmus”’, in Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, (Hrsg.
von H. Jeprn) III 4, Freiburg i Br. 1966, 31-32.
184

they recognized themselves as Church, standing in the continuity

of tradition. Especially after the period of Iconoclasm—seen as
the most dangerous of all heresies this was of great importance.
They did not, therefore, want to draw up a new symbol of the Faith,
but they expressed their éxxdyoimot1moy godvnu% in the oldest
conciliar creed, that of Nicea- Constantinople. They wanted to
prove to themselves that they had not abandoned the Gospel. This
conviction made superfluous and unnecessary any new formula,
which might involve the danger of changing the purity of faith.

Against this background we have to understand the question

of the filiogue which has become such a stumbling block in the
relations between the Church of Rome and Constantinople. Ori-
ginally the Church of Rome was not so involved in this matter,
and this is still reflected at the Synod of 879. The filioqgue had been
introduced around 810 by the Frankish Church to combat Arian
tendencies in Spain which denied the divinity of Christ *. At that
time the Church of the Frankish realms which had expanded their
influence from present-day Spain to Austria, and from Germany
as far as the Middle of Italy, had developed its own theological
and liturgical tendencies. Only when in the 11th century the Pa-
pacy itself came into the hands of the Franks, did the Roman
Church adopt many elements of this Frankish theology °.
There is no doubt that Photius opposed the addition of the
filioque to the Creed on dogmatic grounds. In his famous Encyceli-
cal to the oriental patriarchs * he complained about this addition
by the Frankish missionaries working in Bulgaria, because he con-
sidered it theologically unacceptable. His whole argument is based
upon the conviction that this addition undermined the unity of
God. We find the same reasoning in his Mystagogia® and in his
letter to the Archbishop of Aquileia )»-.

4. Cf. Manco, The homilies of Photius, 302f.

2. Breck, “Die griechische Kirche im Zeitalter des Tkonoklasmus”, 96.
3. RomAnipEs, art. cit. 277ff. An extensive treatment of the different
theological attitudes of the Frankish Church and the Church of Constantinople
is givenin C. W. Monnicu, Geding der orijheid,. Zwolle 1957. The author
shows—with many examples—how non-theological elements were involved.
4. PG 102, 724-742.
5. PG 102, 280-400.
6. PG 102, 793-821.
 185

Photius probably had not fully understood the reason for

the introduction, and in Spain the filioque had been adopted for
pastoral reasons without any other motive. The idea of officially
introducing the addition, or of altering the Creed had not arisen
The original intention had been precisely not to alter the Creed,
and to safeguard the purity of the faith. In his letter to the Arch-
bishop of Aquileia} Photius hinted at the possibility that the ad-
dition had been made out of ignorance. He suggested that the
people responsible for the introduction had not fully understood
the implications of this addition. “Therefore if they have inserted
the clause of the filioqgue out of ignorance, they do not deserve
condemnation”’ ?.
In the light of the foregoing there is no doubt that the horos
of the Photian Synod officially disapproved of the use of the
filtioque by the Frankish missionaries in Bulgaria®. This was
consequently not directed against the Church of Rome which at
that time did not use the addition either. The horos condemned
all additions, changes and subtractions. The wording was kept
in general terms, but its meaning was quite clear. At a moment
when disciplinary troubles had divided the Churches for many
years, and when the victory over Iconoclasm had just become a
fact, the synod was concerned about the unity of Orthodoxy. They
wanted to formulate their desire to remain in the Truth. They thus
rejected all additions, changes and subtractions which might
endanger the purity of this Truth. The horos, however, said nothing
about the theological content of the filioque *. The reason that

(ss ANSYNC 983)9)"NE

2. B. LaourpAs, “The letter of Photius to the Archbishop of Aquileia”,
in KAnoovomia 3, « (1971) 66-68 gives a corrected version of this sentence:
«Totrto 8& xatk&yvwow uty totic obtas 8% dAdyou mp0AnYews Exovotv, odtoGadTHy,
xattor woAAhy, Sik tO tig &yvotas meoxdAvUUa thy’ &v mooZevhoetev».
3. App. 1608ff, especially 1624-1625 ‘Siavota xat yAmoon otépyouev’.
This horos reflects the text of the Encyclical of Photius of 867, cf. PG 102,
725 Cn. 8. See also Ocirskxos, Konstantinopol’skie Sobory 869-870 i 879-880
godov..., 221; Dvornik 196ff.
4. StieRNON, Constantinople IV, 193; M. Jucix, “Origine de la contro-
verse sur addition du Filioque’ au Symbole’’, in Revue des Sciences Philo-
sophiques et Théologiques 28(1939) 377, tries to prove that Photius did not
reject the filioqgue. As V. Grumet, “Le Décret du Synode photien. de 879-880
sur le Symbole de Foi”, in HO 37(1938) 357-372 shows, this argument is not
186

the addition was not condemned by name was that the filioque
itself was not so important.
As far as the Fathers understood it—and their information
was certainly no greater than that of Photius—it implied a double
procession from the Father and the Son. They considered it one
of the many possible heretical opinions, that could be traced back
to older teachings ?.
In the horos they appealed to their intention to stay within
Orthodoxy, in communion with all the Churches throughout the
world, and of all periods of history. They did not seek to exclude
further developments, as they knew that the Niceane Creed had
itself been the result of a development and of additions. This was
not their concern. In their celebration of the unity that had been
achieved and the end to all heresies, they were not concerned about
further development in the future. Their prohibition of changes
was meant to be a seal upon the development of the past: “We re-
stored the unity, they would have said, we are Orthodox, to this
we will hold fast”. The horos says, thinking!” ?.
“This is our
Even if their action was directed against the Frankish
missionaries in Bulgaria, whose whole conduct was unpopular
and who were themselves very anti-Greek, it must be maintained
that the horos was the result of a genuine concern for orthodoxy.
The Roman legates could approve this horos—and they sub-
scribed to it 2—because at that time even Rome had not accepted
the filioque. This approval by the legates is certainly no reason
to question the authenticity of the horos or of the sixth session.
The addition would never have been accepted later in the
Roman Church without the consent of the Church of Constantinople

convincing. Apparently Photius had not understood the difference between the
latin procedere and the greek éxmogevduevoy. On the ‘orthodoxy’ of procedere,
see J-M. GuarricueEs, «Procession et ekporese du Saint Esprit, in Jstina
17(1972) 345-366.
1. Kustas, History and Theology in Photius, 60; cf. Manco, op. cit.
302f.
2. App. 1639.
3. Cf. Puotius’ Mystagogia, PG 102, 380 n. 89; the letter to the Arch-
bishop of Aquileia, PG 102, 820. See also TENNAAIOy, art. cit. 54.
 187

if both Churches had continued to enjoy a lasting union. It is tragic

that this issue could not be discussed thoroughly during a time of
unification. The addition was not the dividing issue. Only after
the division had become a fact, did the filiogue form another ob-
stacle in the way of restoring communion }.

This strong emphasis on unity in Orthodoxy was connected

with a less strict attitude towards law and Church order. In the
discussion on Photius’ reinstatement Rome had objected that he
had been promoted-while a layman. Zacharias of Chalcedon pro-
tested; this custom was not kept in the Roman Church either,
he ae “In the Roman Church as well, some layman have been
ordained bishops; you know their names better than I do. (But
I am not against that, because) a custom can abolish a law!”?
And when a man ‘is worthy to become bishop, why then should
the law prevail? This attitude of mildness, of common sense, of
liberal interpretation of the law was a characteristic of the more
moderate party to which Photius belonged. The Ignatians, however,
favoured strict obedience to the letter of the canons *. It is not
impossible that this was one of the reasons why the Ignatian
group received more support from Rome, where also respect for
the law was highly developed *. At the synod the more open at-
titude prevailed. Photius was aware of the different outlooks in
East and West. When he changed the papal letters, he had shown
that he understood the original meaning of the text. In these
altered versions Photius made the Pope say something different
from John’s original ideas, but at the same time he realized that
he could not change the opinions of Pope John himself. The only
thing he wanted to do was to avoid difficulties with his own Byzan-
tine colleagues who might not understand the ideas of the Pope.
Apparently Photius thus accepted—as long as orthodoxy was not
at stake—the possibility of a variety of opinions of lesser impor-
tance.
In liturgical matters also the various differences between East

1. Juaie, “Originede la controverse ...”, 382.

2. Mansi XVII 457 D.
3. Dvornik 9.
4. See e.g. the stress on the law in Pope John’s letters relating to the
promotion of laymen to the episcopacy and to the reinstatement of Photius.
188

and West were accepted. In the papal letters the Orders were given
according to the Western liturgical tradition. The Constantinopo-
litan version did not change this, and even explained customs which
might be difficult to understand in Byzantium *. It is known from
history that liturgical customs have become items of controversy
and apology 2. This was always the case when unity was disturb-
ed, for in strange liturgical customs Christians came to see a danger
to Orthodoxy as they understood it.
At the synod of 879-880 the desire for unity was able to over-
come controversies which had inspired both East and West to
language, that was, to say the least, unfriendly. The weak point
was that this desire also resulted in the sidestepping and obscuring
of some more important issues which should have been discussed
because a few years later they were the reason for the break which
has remained unhealed until our times.

It was self-evident to the participants of the synod that the

horos was suggested by the Emperor, or that the Emperor signed
and approved the decrees of this council *. They thus bore witness
to the traditional understanding of the Christian society of their
days where Emperor and Patriarch each had their particular place.
The whole world (oikoumene) is Christian, and the Emperor
is the God—chosen protector of this Christian world *. The
‘conversion’ of Constantine the Great made it possible to give the
Kingdom of God a visible center on earth: the Byzantine Empire.
The Emperor was no longer the sacred Emperor of the old Roman
Empire, who even had divine and priestly characteristics. He was
man, just as anybody else, possessing a special God-given voca-
tion®. He was considered to be in the line of the Kings of Israel; he
was the anointed shepherd of his people, the Moses or the David ©.
The divine Wisdom of God was upon him, he was the ‘faith-

1. See above p. 89.

2. Cf. e.g. the letter of Pope Nicholas, answering the questions of Kaghan
Boris, PL 119, 978-1016.
3. Mansi XVII, 543ff.
4. Dvornik, “Emperors, Poges and General Councils”, 16ff.
5. H. XpHztoy, “O Bacrebds nat 6 teped¢ cig t6 BuTdvtov», in KAnjoovouta
3,0/(1971)1.
6. Mansi XVII, 517 E; see also G. Maturew, “The Christian Back-
ground”, in CMA IV I, 45-46.
 189

ful Emperor, in Christ God’ 6 2v Xo:ot Océ motbs Bacrekc. The

way the Emperor was seen, is expressed in his coronation ceremony.
He professed his faith to demonstrate that he stood in the line of
tradition, and then was anointed by the Patriarch and crowned.
In a certain sense he was thus ordained—ordained to guide his
people. For that reason he could be called ‘sacred’ although some
Emperors had taken this title more in the meaning of the old pagan
understanding, that the Emperor himself was of divine origin}.
For the Byzantines, however, the coronation ceremony exp-
ressed also the limitation of the vocation of the Emperor. He stood
under the Word of God. He was the protector of the Faith, but next
to him stood the Patriarch. The royal and priestly dignity which
are united in the person of Christ were symbolized on earth by two
persons: the Emperor and the Patriarch. These two lived togeth-
er in full harmony; these needed each other. In a proposed new
canonical code prepared under Basil I, and with much influence
from Photius, the ’Exavaywy7, this ‘ocvypewvie’ is described in
clear terms: “The spiritual and material peace and happiness of
the people depend on the symphonia in everything of Kingdom
and Priesthood” ?.
In the days of the Photian Synod this was how the Empire
was understood. The eagerness of Kaghan Boris of Bulgaria to
have his own patriarch also indicates the same conception; without
a patriarch he could not really be Emperor. However, there are
symptoms of a new development. The unity of the Empire grew
weaker in East and West. The various ‘reges’ in the West consid-
ered themselves in fact the rulers oftheir nation, evenif they accept-
ed a nominal submission to the Emperor. This is due also to a
newer form of government under the influence of the Frankish
feodal system °. Under the influence of the pseudo-Isidoric de-
cretals the political independence of the Pope had grown, although
he still considered himself a citizen of the Empire. This develop-

1. Xpuxtoy, art. cit. 14ff; App. 470 CV «zd Oetov tudv xpdtoc». See
also F. Dvornik, “The Schism between East and West”, in Eastern Churches
Review 1(1966-1967) 6. This idea about the sanctity of the royal office was
also. alive in the West, cf. Concar, L’Ecclésiologie..., 302f.
2. Quoted by Xpuztoy, art. cit. 11.
3. Xpuxroy, art. cit. 9 ad 1; cf also Concar, L’Ecclésiologie..., 137,
311, 317, 248ff, 308ff.
190
rs of
ment in the West was by no means welcomed by the Empero
in
Constantinople. In this respect the coronation of Charlemagne
800 by Pope Leo was considered an act of treason which endanger-
ed the unity of the Empire 1. In the Orient as well the dream of
the one empire had lost much of its value. The position of the Emper-
or had been utterly weakened because of the Islamic domination.
In fact the patriarchs of the oriental sees started to act as Emper-
or, just as in the West the Popes had taken responsibilities belong-
ing to the Emperor.
This ambiguity can be seen at the Synod of 879-880; the new
development together with the old understanding. The idea that
the Church and Empire were one reality still existed as an ideal S
Matters of administration, such as the organization of dioceses
were still a matter of the Emperor; the Fathers protested when
the Roman legates claimed any rights in the Bulgarian question.
“It is up to the Emperor to regulate this” *. It was accepted
without difficulty that Photius had been restored to the patriarchal
throne under the influence of the Emperor. The Emperor still
had the final responsibility within the Church, and it was to the
Emperors the legates had to present themselves upon their arrival
in Constantinople. Thus the Roman legates witnessed that they
were members of the Empire, and felt themselves to be such. The
Emperor suggested the horos. He was the Head of the Christian
family, and as such the protector of orthodoxy, unity and peace.
Yet we also notice at the Photian synod a new development. The
‘nimbus’ of orthodoxy which was to adorn the Emperor had
suffered greatly in the recent past when Emperors had been the
defenders of the heresy of Iconoclasm. Thus the responsibilities
of the Patriarch (and the bishops) had received a stronger empha-
sis. The papal attitude in this respect was very clear, and received
in the East an open response. In the papal letters the authoritative
position of the Priesthood was stated in strong terms, even above
the Emperor. Photius, who understood this, added to it his own

1. F. Dvornik, “Which Councils are Ecumenical?”, in JES 3(1966)

344-328, who deals extensively with the political understanding and ideas of
the Byzantine Empire, its uniqueness, its unity, its relation to the Church,
(uO
2. Dvornik, Byzance et la primauté romaine, 93.
3. Manst XVII, 420 C.
 Toa

emphasis. In the alteration of the letter of Pope John to the Emper-

ors *, a warning is put into the mouth of the Pope, that the Emper-.
or ‘ines not have all authority *. In this respect it is interesting
to see the differences in the two concepts of anew canonical collec-
tion which were presented to Basil, the IZodyewov and the ’Exa-
vayoyy. In the latter one—we have already mentioned them in
another context *—the influence of the Emperor in doctrinal
matters is strongly limited; the only person capable of interpret-
ing with authority. the eg and prescriptions of the Holy Fathers,
and the decisions of the synod is the Patriarch. This concept was
probably the work of Photius himself, and is an indication of how
we should appreciate his activities in this field at the Synod of
879-880. In fact, the Emperor selected the [odyeioov for the new
collection. Its formulation is much milder and follows more closely
the traditional understanding of the cuugevie. Perhaps the bishops
of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate did not want to ascribe
such great influence to their patriarch ¢.
The Emperor himself shows at the Photian synod a tendency
to diminish his influence in matters that were largely ecclesiastical
The Emperor did not appear at the sessions of the synod, because
—as he said—he wanted to guarantee freedom in the discussions >.
He knew that he should have been there, he confessed. This means
that something unusual had happened. The mourning period was
not a satisfactory explanationof his absence, for he could have
postponed the synod. A symptom of a new understanding of the
imperial function by the Emperor himself can be detected here °.
At the time of the Photian Synod of 879-880 a certain separation

_ App. 164 CV, ‘xatreo éZovctav gyovtes...’.

. Dvornik, Byzance et la primauté, 93; I. TIANariatiaoy, «QO teedc
ts zal To oxtoun tv éxxAnadv», in ’OeGodosia 9(1934) 126. The indepen-
dence of the Church was the first aim in the whole life and work of Photius.
3. Cf. p. 189. J. Scuarr, “Quellenstudien zum Prooimion der Epana-
goge”’, in BZ 52(1959) 8, speaks about the authorship of Photius.
4. Dvornik, Byzance et la primauté romaine, 108ff; Dvornik, The idea
of Apostolicity, 271.
5. Mansi XVII, 514 BC.
6. On the growing opposition against the direct influence of the Emper-
ors in Church matters, cf. ConcAr, op. cit. 350. Also Pope Nicholas I had
protested against the presence of the Emperor at a synod, cf. MGH Hp. VI
470.
192
,
of Church and State—in modern terminology—was, it appears
considered desirable, although the fundam ental positio n of the
In
Emperor as head of the Christian Family was not questioned.
this respect there is a difference from the West, where the Pope
also defended his superiority politically ’.

The specific function of the Patriarch and the bishops within

the Church after the Emperor is not dealt with explicitly although
there are a few elements worth mentioning. They were the shepherds
of the flock, with functions which the Emperor did not have. They
had the mission to preach the Gospel and the true faith. When
they asked the Emperor to sign ®, it was because they had been
responsible throughout the synod. In the discussion as to whether
laymen could be consecrated it was emphasized that they had to
be the most deserving men; it did not then matter if they were
laymen or not 3. The only important question was whether they
were capable of leading the people *. Clearly the Patriarch (and
the bishop) was to be chosen freely. If the Patriarch is wanted by
everybody, who can then prevent him from being the bishop? °
Apparently the Fathers expressed here without question the old
Christian tradition that the bishop symbolizes the unity of the
Church. The synod does not supply any information about the
procedure of appointing local bishops; they spoke mainly about
the Patriarch. But the question of the Ignatian bishops and their
return to the Church was treated in such a way that their transfer

1. As is expressed in the coronation of Charlemagne. See on this Laporre,

VEurope et le Saint-Siége a Vépoque carolingienne.
2. Mansi XVII 5417 B.
3. Ibid. 488-489.
4. In the Bast the influence of the clergy was not as great asin the West
where clergy had become identified with educated people. Thus the sacred
was confused with civilized, and reduced to a beneficium, to family property
or a scholastic title. In the East many canonists did not consider it acceptable
for deacons or subdeacons to stay in their ministry after entering state offi-
ces, and even for readers and singers this was not viewed very favourably.
However, according to an imperial decision, this was not prohibited. Cf. G.
Every, “‘Sacralisation and secularization in East and West in the first mille-
nium after Christ”, in Concilium 5(1969) n. 7, 25.
5. App. 907-909 RV; see also Dvornikx, Emperors, Popes and General
Councils, 7.
 193

or appointment seemed to be the work of the Emperor or the Pa-

triarch }.

Upon their arrival in Constantinople the Roman legates had

refused to concelebrate with Photius. This was felt by Photius as
a great offence, as the letter of Pope John proves. Communion in
the Eucharist was the central expression of the unity among the
local Churches, and if one did not accept the other as ‘concele-
brant’, then this meant the refusal of communion. In fact it was
the denial of the other’s belonging to the Church. For this reason
the term concelebrant was used so often in the letters of Pope
John and the Acts ?.
It was therefore an indication of this true understanding of
what ‘Church’ meant when Cardinal Peter at the end of the fourth
session invited the participants of the synod to celebrate together
with the legates and Photius the Eucharistic liturgy of Christmas °.
This is the Church: the communion of all local Churches, united
in one faith and celebrated in one Eucharist.
The Fathers did not aim to define the Church. It was a reality
to them which was not questioned. On the other hand the synod
revealed in their actions, in their comments and reactions, and in
their approach to various practical problems a very deep under-
standing of the Church.

In sum we can say that at the Synod the Church was a reality,
more lived than formulated. Although the Church of God was
expanded all over the oikouméné, its central point for the Eastern
fathers was primarily the local Church, their own local Church.
It was self-evident that the Church was universal, but in their
local Church this universality became present; and mainly they
thought of the patriarchates as the realization of this local Church.

4. Cf. App. 724ff RV and CY.

2. App. 295 RV; 427 CV; 534 CV; 558 CV; 802 CV; 959 RV (‘coe-
piscopo’); 1040 RV (‘communionem... reddimus’); 1138-1139 CV; 1325
-1328 RV (‘nostrae communionis ... partecipem’); 1329 CV (cvvxowwavobtvta
sod paxaetov Iétpov to} d&mootdéxov); 1444, 1447, 1451, 1465 (ovvxorvervot),
1541-1542 (tod drmootorixcd Opdvov... xorvenviag.., ovuveAnoovouor); Mansi
XVII 380 BD, 384 HE, 390 C, 508 etc.
3. Mansi XVII 492 E.
194

These sees were called to be one, one in the same faith, one in the
same Eucharist, and under the guidance and protection of the
Patriarch and the Emperor. This necessary unity did not affect
the independence of the local Churches. The East considered the
equality and independence of the local Church to be obvious. They
certainly allocated the first place in this communion of local
Churches to the Church of Rome, but without any encroaching
on their own independence. In the West the relations between the
local Churches were understood differently. There they found in
the bishop of Rome an authoritative protector and shepherd. Pho-
tius’ position was mid-way between those points of view, but he
inclined towards the Eastern side. He strongly defended the inde-
pendence of his own Constantinopolitan Church, but on the other
hand he appreciated the independent position of the Pope of Rome
towards the Emperor, as an example to be imitated. But he would
not allow this papal independence to interfere with his own Church.
At the synod these various opinions did not seem harmful
or dangerous to the unity of the Church. Because they were not
considered to be matters of orthodoxy, they did not prevent the
restoration of the unity. East and West had the same fundamental
understanding about the Church, and although they varied in
canonical aspects, this did not cause a breach. Neither did the
different approach to the political set-up of Empire and kingdoms
tear apart both Churches. But the Western papal thinking which
at the synod of 879-880 was not accepted, but not denied either,
was to prove to be the factor of division. The Synod of 879-880 was
supposed to be a synod of union. It is regrettable that it failed to
recognize that this varied thinking about papal authority was not
to remain a matter of acceptable opinion. It became a vital question
of orthodoxy. The virus of the later division was therefore present
at this synod of union.

4, CHURCH AND COUNCIL

For the orthodox Churches the synodical structure is taken

for granted. In the West this form of Church government became
understood only after Vatican II. Whether this modern tendency
is really a rediscovery of the old synodal principle remains out
of our range of discussion at the moment. It is clear that before
the division of the Church, the synod was a datum which did not
 1195

have to be justified or explained. It was generally agreed, that

according to the 34th Canon of the Apostles, nothing important
could be done without the consultation and the consent of the
other bishops. This was the only guarantee of mutual harmony
and of honour being ascribed to God through Christ in the Holy
Spirit 1, This consciousness also prevailed at the synod of 879-880.
In 879 the Fathers did not ask themselves why they came together.
They came. There was a subconscious conviction that it was
meaningful. There. had been troubles, years of fighting, of accu-
sations, condemnations, exiles and depositions, but now peace
was restored. Further Pope John had given a positive answer to
the invitation of the Emperor. Thus they came together to celebrate
—to celebrate unity: at a synod the Church of God comes together,
at a synod the Churches celebrate their unity.
The Oriental legates did not know exactly what had been the
cause of the troubles: they came together to find their brothers,
to rejoice with them (and to receive help from them). “To feel to-
gether and to suffer together” they had said at a certain moment.
The Roman legates also came with unity as their goal. Even if
they ascribed great influence to Pope John in this matter, they
bore witness to their belief that at a synod the Church of God
is present. Harmony and peace within the Church are confirmed
there, and therefore they respected the synod as something greater
than themselves. They admitted its authority. The Church is a
synodically ruled body. They certainly would have agreed to this,
although at times they gave the impression that such a synod is
nothing more than the podium from which the decisions of the
Roman Church are announced. For the Byzantine bishops the synod
was a self-evident reality. A synod, for them, is more than a meet-
ing to do something, it is the expression of the Church which meets
to express its continuity with the Traditicn, with the other great
synods.
There is no doubt that for all the bishops participating a synod
was not only important for its decisions, for its regulations and
definitions, but also for itself. A synod is the expression of the com-
mon care of all, the common feeling of joy and suffering together,

1. P. Durey, “The Synodal Structure of the Church in Eastern Theolo-

gy”, in One in Christ 7(1971) 153; See also O'CONNELL, op. cit. 108ff.
196

and is a particular manifestation of the Church of Christ. This was

expressed very clearly in the discussions about the horos. The
Fathers wanted to be synod; they wanted to be syn odos with each
other, ‘on the same road with each other’. They aspired to express
their feeling as Church, their éxxdyoactimdy gpdvqux, as they
said themselves, in the horos of the other synods. In this respect
the emphasis on the number of the synods was a very important
issue to them. They insisted that the council of 787 be counted as
the seventh Ecumenical Council. This guaranteed their unity and
continuity with the Orthodox tradition. A fine summary of this
way of thinking had been given at the Synod by the legate Elias
of Jerusalem, when he interrupted the reading of the 10th chapter
of the commonitorium, which rejected the Council of 869 as a ‘non-
synod’. He said:
How could you call a meeting a synod, if it only filled the Church with
innumerable schisms? ... With what synod could be numbered a‘synod’
which dared to decide contrary to all the Holy Synods, which condemned
innocent people without investigation?, which upset and by-passed all
ecclesiastical and civil laws ?+

This gives us as it were a definition of a synod. A synod means

oneness. A synod which does not bring unity in the Church does
not deserve its name. This does not deny that ‘separations’ are
sometimes the result of a synod, as had been the case for example
at the Council of Chalcedon when the Monophysites were declared
outside the Church, because a synod also means faithful respect
to the tradition. A synod which breaks this continuity, is not a
synod either. Thus the synod of 449 (the Robber’s Council) had not
been a synod. For the same reasons the councils of 754 and 815
which declared Iconoclasm the correct teaching, had not been
synods. A synod must deal fairly with people, and must not for-
get that it was Christ’s mission to heal and to save. A synod which
does not meet with this fundamental requirement of the Christian
Church is not a synod. A synod which does not respect the order
of State and Church—the status quo of the Empire is meant—
is rebellious and egoistic, and should not be called a synod.

The Synod of 879 was convinced of the need to be unanimous

1. App. 1523-1530,
 197

in its decisions, the authority of a synod is precisely its being able

to speak in the name of the whole Church. It was the synod as
a whole which took the decisions, regardless of who suggested a
course of action, or spoke during the sessions. The synod spoke
(q ayia ovvodog einev), it acted as one body. Nowhere do we see
an example of decisions being taken by a majority wote, but always
by unanimous vote 1. It was this that gave a synod its authority.
When Photius spoke about the deposed bishops in the Constanti-
nopolitan version of the Papal letter, he added that this deposition
had happened ‘at a synod’. Thus the Fathers expressed in their
signatures that they accepted the synodical decisions ‘‘on the autho-
rity of and consenting with” the synod itself. They were not doing
it because they had been told. Only with the Roman legates do
we find this ambiguity; they referred to the Pope. The local Church-
es submitted themselves to the Synod, as to the expression of their
collegiality. When after their election the patriarchs sent the news
of their appointment to the others, they did this as an act of the
‘synod abroad’, the Church all over the world, as a request for
acceptance by the others, a request for communion. It was a proof
of their orthodoxy, of their being ‘on the same road’ (syn odos).
This was the function of their Synodal letters, which were therefore
called Synodica *.

For a clear understanding of the synodical structure of the

Church two elements must be distinguished in the concept of the
synod as understood by the Fathers of 879-880. On the one hand
a synod is the coming together of the Church. At a synod the Church
makes itself present. Therefore a synod, as far as it desires to be
obedient to the Word of God, has its own value. Within this desire
of obedience, it judges and makes its decisions, and it does not
wait for acceptance later on by the Pope or by any other autho-
rity. The synod is itself the authoritative voice of the unity of
the Church. For that reason it was so important that all the pa-
triarchates were represented 4, while the presence and active

4. Mansi XVII 493 E, 496 ABC. See on the question of the accept-
ance of the council of 787 Mansi/XIII 376 (at the synod of 787).
2. App. 245 CV.
3. App. 1215 CV.
4, B.g. Manst XVI 148 DE.
198

participation of the Church of Rome was especially appreciated.

On the other hand a synod is also an Imperial institution, a sort
of Reichstag of the Empire+. They therefore normally gathered
in the capital of the Empire or in its neighbourhood. At an ecu-
menical synod not only the Church was present, but the whole
of the olxovuévy, the whole world, and thus also—in our termino-
logy—the state, because the whole of the oixouuévn was supposed
to be submitted to the Emperor, something which it was hoped
would soon be a reality 2. It did not absolutely matter if all bi-
shops were present or not, although all should be present, because
the synod was ecumenical 3. Its ecumenicity did not depend on
the number of the participants +. Ecumenical is thus not the same
thing as mondial. Ecumenicity was, politically speaking, a given
presupposition. It was the Emperor who invited the patriarchs
and the bishops to come, or rather who ordered them. It was the
Emperor who signed the decisions and gave them his approval. It
was the Emperor who gave a council its ecumenical character. In
an ecumenical council in the full sense of the word a doubal ecume-
nicity becomes apparent: a political one and a theological one °.

1. Cf. Dvornik, The Schism between East and West, 6ff. Different po-
litical understanding of the social set-up has in the past often been overlooked,
especially the difference which resulted from the stress in the West on the
apostolicity of the Roman see. In the East these apostolic sees, the patriar-
chates, were of importance mainly because of their influence in the Empire.
In the West, not the Emperor but the Pope was considered to be God’s vicar,
ibid. 8; See also O’CONNELL, op. cit. 112.
2. W. Ensstin, “The Government and administration of the Byzantine
Empire’, in CMH IV II 9.
3. DE Vries, Konstantinopel 1V, 21; cf. Anastasius’ proof of the ecu-
menicity of the Council of 869, Mansr XVI 7 CD; or Baanes, ibid. 80 D. See
also Dvornik, “Which councils are ecumenical?’’, in JES 3 (1966) 328. In
the controversies between East and West later on this argument was rever-
sed: if all the patriarchs are present, a synod is then ecumenical. In this
way attempts have been made to prove the ecumenicity of the council of
869, or 1439, but the same argument can be used to arrive at contrary con-
clusions.
4. The 6th session of the synod of 879-880, with only 22 patricipants
present, is called ecumenical, Manst XVII, 520 D; also Trullo (692) was
called ecumenical, cf. Manst XI, 921; The same for the synod of 864, cf.
Mansit XV 595.
5. Concar, L’Ecclésiologie ..., 382; on this double criterion of a synod,
 199

Because of this double content the Constantinopolitan bishops

in 880 urged their brothers of the other patriarchates to accept
the Council of 787 as ecumenical. It was the request of the local
Church of Constantinople which placed itself under the judgement
of its fellow churches. The synod of 787 had been an imperial council
and in that sense politically ecumenical. But was it also the voice
of the universal Church.in its universality ?Was it ecumenical in
a theological sense? This was the ecclesiological meaning behind
the request to count 787 among the other great councils: the de-
mand for the trust and communion of the other churches with
the Constantinopolitan Church 1.
This double concept of synod is also illustrated very clearly
in the annulment of the council of 869. For Photius and the Byzan-
tine bishops this synod had been wrong and without value. It had
not been what a synod should be, a realization of the Church. Of
course, there had been a meeting and decisions had been taken,
Photius being condemned, but these decisions had been wrong. As
a direct result, the synod itself had become false and without value.
It had to disappear entirely and was not to be added to the other
holy synods 2. In this respect it was important to prove that the
legates of the oriental patriarchates in 869 had not represented those
patriarchates. If this were the case, the oriental patriarchates had
not been present at the council of 869, and thus this synod could
not be called ecumenical in the theological sense of the word. In
other words, there had not been a synod. The synod of 869 was also
however, a matter for the Empire. Its legal existence had to be an-
nulled officially by an act of the Empire. For this a new imperial
or ‘ecumenical’ council was necessary. This explains, why the Empe-
ror in his approval of the synod of 879-880 mentioned explicitly the
annulment of the council of 869 °.

A synod can thus only be understood within the context of

the Byzantine Empire where Church and State were one reality.
In Rome, where the ties with the Empire were lived less conscious-

see: N. AFANASSIEFF, “Qu’est-ce qu’un concile oecuménique”, in Messager

Orthodoxe (1959) 14, 16.
4. Cf. Dvornik, “Which Councils are ecumenical?”, 316ff.
2. Mansi XVII, 465 A.
3. Ibid. 517 D.
200

ly, another more pragmatic opinion about councils had slowly

developed. Although the Church of Rome also existed synodical-
ly 1, it considered itself, on the grounds of the promise of Christ
to Peter, as the criterion of Orthodoxy within the universal Church.
In the person of the Pope, Peter continues to live within the Church.
In relation to this a synod was justified in taking decisions, but
these decisions had to be approved by the Pope. Alternatively,
they could be rejected by him. The revoking of some decisions
of a synod did not therefore mean that the synod itself lost its
validity. When Pope John revoked the sentence against Photius,
the synod of 869 was in his eyes not annulled.
This difference of opinion about the meaning of a synod was
obvious at the council of 879-880. Exactly because of this difference
Photius had changed the letters of the Pope, or better, he had
‘translated’ the Roman point of view to make it understandable
for Constantinople. He accordingly made the Pope say in his letter
to the Emperor, that one council can annul another ?. When Pope
John attached his approval to the decisions of the synod, it included
—as we have seen—the rejection of 869. Yet this annulment had
another meaning for the Pope than the one it had for the Byzantine
bishops, as is clear from the fact that in the West this synod could
be revived. The fundamental problem was the ecclesiological
question: where lies the criterion of truth in the Church? To this
question East and West already had different answers in 879-880.
In the Byzantine East the synod itself, the Church which concen-
trated and manifested itself at a synod, was the criterion. In the
West it belonged to the mission and the function of Peter to inter-
pret in an authoritative way the truth within the Church *. These
various points of view did not prevent the restoration of unity.
On the other hand is it possible that there was more agreement
than we can deduce from the Acts? Perhaps there were longer
discussions during the expanded stay of the Roman legates in
Constantinople. There must have been a discussion on the matter

1. Manst XVIla-XVIIIb enumerates 29 local synods in the West; see

also Manst XIV 1030; XV 123.
2. App. 213-215 CV, but see App. 213-216 RV.
3. De Vries, Konstantinopel IV, 34; for the different understanding
on ecumenical councils in the discussion between theologians of the Oriental
Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches, see SVQ 14(1970) 224.
 204

of the fuliogue to make it possible for both parties to come to a

consensus on the treatment of this problem. The Creed was affirmed
anew, but without any formal condemnation of anybody. The
same is true of the first canon which clearly guaranteed the Roman
position of privilege, and so touched on the question of papal
jurisdiction. {t is unfortunate that we have to content ourselves
in this matter with guesses.
However, this synod provides us with sufficient data to ap-
proach these problems with new fervour. History teaches us that
it was precisely the difference of mentality that formed the greatest
problem. Because the various questions were not discussed fully
in openness and mutual confidence, unity could not survive.
 Gi ASR eRe tal

ECUMENICAL CHALLENGE

4. TRAGEDY AND HOPE

History—for more than one reason—has broken East and

West apart. The West developed its understanding of the function
of Peter within the Church, which was already present in 879, and
the East also developed its approach to the Church. These dif-
ferences were present at the Synod of 879-880. Despite this, unity
was established. Does that not mean that this Council of 879 of-
fers the Church of today an ecumenical challenge?
The synod of 879-880 was a single event, and should not be
exaggerated. The opinions which we have analyzed as being present
at this synod should be checked and compared with other sources
from the times. Much of this work has been done, and we referred
to it in the various footnotes ?. This synod of 879 was however
more than just one of the many events of the ninth century. It
has become clear from the analysis that East and West met in a
special way. The differences which later on were going to divide
the two halves of Christendom were present but their dividing
force was not fully understood. This was the tragedy of this synod
but forms also its hope.

The history of the separation of East and West, with all its
painful events, the Photian legend, the unilateral Gregorian
Reform, the break in 1054, the sack of Constantinople in 1204, the
Council of Florence of 1439, were all present in embryo at the Synod
of 879. The West had already adopted the mentality of a Uni-
versal Church which under the supremacy of the successors of
Peter exercised its moral influence throughout the world, indepen-
dent of Emperors, kings and princes. At least in theory, the East

1. Especially the book of Y. Concar, L’Ecclésiologie du haut Moyen-

Age, Paris 1968.
 203

continued its life within the Empire, where the Emperor was the
Head of the Christian Family, and the Church was part of the
social structure, without any political influence. Photius took a
position which was in between the two; he was a convinced citizen
of the Empire, but defended passionately the independence of
the mission of the Church. After the Synod of 879-880, both parties
went their own way, developed their own form of Christianity
without their onesidedness being corrected, and when they tried
to meet again—in 1274 and 14391—they were as two sisters
who did not recognize each other any more. The history of hatred,
accusation and polemics which followed, so infected relations
that any further ‘meeting’ became impossible.

Yet the synod of Photius can offer hope to Christians of the

present time. It was able to overcome the differences which existed
in East and West, although it must be added that in their desire
for unity the dividing force of these issues was not fully understood.
For those who are searching persistently for the restoration of
unity, this synod is an important lesson. It offers Christians the
possibility of retracing their steps. While working for unity,
Christians should not be led to overlook the dividing issues. These
issues can be faced, because the search is not for something new,
but seeks to return to the same faith which bound the Fathers of
879-880 together: the faith that God always stays with his Church.

2. THE ECUMENICAI, COUNCIL OF 879-880

At the moment there exists in the Orthodox theology a tenden-

cy to exaggerate the value of general councils. This can be seen
in the discussions dealing with the preparation of the ‘Great and
Holy Synod’. The Orthodox Church likes to call itself the Church
of the Ecumenical Councils 2. In the West, as well, sometimes the
expectations connected with an ecumenical council were too great,
implying that the council would bring the solution to all pro-

1. This does not say anything about political issues which might have
been involved, nor about the sincerity of the participants in these synods,
cf. on this the study of J. Grit, SJ., The Council of Florence, Cambridge 1961.
2. P. L’Hurtirer, “Tserkovnaya Ierarkhia i vlast’? Uchitelstva”’, in
Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarkhii, 5 (1959) 62. See also Nexuas, op cit 3ff
204

blems?. Such ideas, however, do not really touch the question of

the councils themselves but rather deal with the results which these
councils might achieve. They do not say anything about the essence
of a synod or council but are only connected with its acceptance
by the Church. This acceptance has become the subject of many
theological speculations and solutions; from the Roman understand-
ing that a council depends on the approval of the Pope, to the inter-
pretations of a Khomiakovian theology which leaves the acceptance
totally to the faithful *.
When a Roman Catholic thinks of a council, he could start
quoting canon 227 of the Codex of Canon Law. It says that an
ecumenical council enjoys the highest authority within the Church;
it should be approved or at least accepted by the successor of
Saint Peter; it is the Pope’s prerogative to convoke these councils,
to preside over them and to confirm them. The documents of
Vatican II also repeat this same understanding of an ecumenical
council. This canon of the Codex does not provide an explanation
of the essence of a synod, but deals only with its acceptance.
Our analysis of the Synod of 879, on the other hand, offers
some theological insight which might be of assistance. A council
wants to be the expression of what the Church is *. The Church
is the chosen people of God of the New Testament. It is the éxxiyota,
the ‘called-together-out’ of the peoples. Even if this insight is not
literally reflected in the synod of 879, the reference to the Emperor
in language taken from the Old Testament certainly proves that
this was accepted #4.
1. See, e.g., The appeal to an Ecumenical Council, made at the Reichs-
tag of Speyer in 1529, ¢f. E. Isernon, “Die deutsche Firstenreforma-
tion”, in Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte (Hrsg. von H. Jepin) IV, Freiburg
i Br 1967, 252. See also the Council of Constance, cf. A. Finx, “Das abend-
landische Schisma und die Konzilien”, in Handbuch der Kiurchengeschichte
(Hrsg. von H. Jepin) III 2, Freiburg i Br 1968, 547-572.
2. A. Axivisatos, Procés verbaux du premier congrés de théologie ortho-
doxe, Athénes 1939, 256. See also G. Drsairve, SJ., “Sobornost ou papauté”
in NRTA 74(1952) 355-371, 467-484; J. G.Remmers, “De conciliaire gedachte
in de oosterse orthodoxie” in COH 12(1959-1960) 258-261.
3. H. Kine, “A Theology of Ecumenical Councils” in Theology Digest
11(1963) 135-145; A. Scumemann, “Towards a theology of Councils” in SVQ
6(1962) 170-184. Both articles have been a great help in developing the fol-
lowing thoughts.
4. G. Marnew, “The Christian Background”, in CMH IV I 45-46;
XPH=TOY, art. cit. 14. See also above p. 138.
 205

A Council — notice the same root of the word concilium—

concallium—ecclesia — wants to be the human expression of this
divinely called people of God. In other words an ecumenical council
is the human expression of the ‘Ecumenical Council’ called together
by God, which is the Church. This understanding means first that
such a human expression of the Church is not necessarily required
in history. The Church could live without councils, or better the
Church is not to be identified with a council.
On the other hand the Church of God needs to express itself
in a human way; in this respect a council is needed, but this neces-
sity is quite different from the necessity for Councils mentioned
above. This does not say anything about the agenda of sucha sy-
nod, nor about the form which a council takes. These elements
are decided by the course of history, during which many varieties
of councils took place. What is essential is that the Church ‘meets’.

“Where two or three are gathered in the name of the Lord,

he is there in the midst of them’. This gathering, this ovvaétc
was experienced by the early Church as the specific characteristic
of Christians: they gathered. It was even their principal crime in
the days of the persecutions. Such gatherings were not the Church,
but the Church was there. They expressed the Church. In such a
gathering the Church becomes One, Holy, Catholic and Aposto-
lic. Nevertheless in such a gathering the Church can be more or less
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. It depends on the degree of
expression, of ‘representation’, to what extent the Church will be
actualized }.
This degree of representation does not mean that more or less
members of the Church are present, or from a greater or smaller
number of countries. It is the degree to which the One Universal
Church is represented that determines how represer tative or expres-
sive a gathering will be. Such a gathering thus expresses more or
less the universality and unity of the Church. Depending on the de-
gree of openness to the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, who
speaks also in the signs of the time, the gathering becomes more
or less the expression of the Church.

In history some Councils have received the name of ‘ecu-

1. H. Kine, Infallibile? Una domanda, Brescia 1970, 240 ‘only as, and
inasmuch as being an authentic interpretation of the Church’.
206

menical councils’, others have been ‘regional’, and others have

been called ‘local Councils’. Ecumenical was used because of the
official imperial character of a synod, but it is also aterm to ex-
press theological universality and catholicity. Ecumenical Coun-
cils were the universal and ecumenical expression of the Church
in its universality and ecumenicity. A local Council also expresses
and represents the Church, but precisely in the ‘local’ expression
of the Universal Church. Both in local and ecumenical councils
the same Universal Church and the same Faith can be expressed
in truth and in openness to the Holy Spirit.
Acceptance of a Council by the Church as theologically ecu-
menical means that the Universal Church recognizes itself in this
council in its catholicity and ecumenicity. Some of the ecumenical
Councils—Constantinople I (381) or Constantinople II (553)—
hardly deserve the name ecumenical if one understands the term
to mean representation of all bishops of the whole world. Yet
in these ‘local’ councils the Catholic Church recognized itself in
its catholicity and ecumenicity. Therefore these ‘local’ councils
became (theologically) ecumenical. The opposite is possible too.
Councils called together as ‘ecumenical’ were not recognized as
such because they were not recognized as the expression of the
universal Church. This does not necessarily mean that such an
expression was ‘wrong’ or ‘heretical’. It could very well have been
a valid expression, but a ‘locally’ valid expression.

The Photian Synod of 879-880 was called together as an ecu-

menical council, a council of the Empire. However, neither by East,
nor by West has this synod been accepted in history as a theological-
ly ecumenical council. Why not? History has certainly treated this
synod very wrongly. A later council which could declare its ecu-
menicity has not (yet) taken place. The break in the relations
among the local Churches of East and West made this impossible.
Can Christians not now take up the challenge by accepting
the Council of 879 as ecumenical? It was a synod of union. The
dividing issues did not divide then. Why should they divide the
Church now? Could this Synod not be recognized by the Or-
thodox and Catholic Churches as theologically ecumenical, as
the universal expression of the Universal Church? 1

1. The Council of 787 (Nicea II) has been accepted by East and West
 207

East and West stopped walking together, stopped being

synodos. This was a shortcoming, but was this unfaithfulness
to the gospel? This is another question.
When after the eleventh century the Western Church, going
back to the synod of 869 recognized itself in that synod, although
it had been revoked by the Photian Synod, it meant that this synod
of 869 was recognized by the Western Church as its expression }.
This in itself is no problem. But the Roman Church has unilaterally
called this synod of 869 the Eighth Ecumenical Council. It con-
sidered it the expression of the Church in its ecumenicity and
universality. After the break between East and West, the Roman
Church started so to identify itself with the Universal Church.
This identification was a further development of the ideas about
the essential position of the Roman See within the Church which
we saw at work also in the Synod of 879-880 ?.
Nevertheless, this development should not discourage us. This
identification of Roman Church with universal Church never
became consistently dogmatized. The synods of Pisa, Constance
and Basle showed another more synodal ecclesiology, which was

as an Ecumenical Council, because of the decisions of the Photian Synod of

879-880—certainly for the East (and originally also for the West)—which
declares the quasi-ecumenical importance which the Photian Synod has
enjoyed in the past (and-in the Orthodox Church still enjoys).
1. Dvornik 329.
2. B. Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350. A study on
the concepts of infallibility; sovereignty and tradition in the Middle Ages,
Leiden 1972, emphasizes rightly the distinction between the concepts of
primacy, indefectibility, and infallibility. “...it is very hard for a historian
to see the emergence of the doctrine of papal infallibility as the slow unfolding
of a truth that the church has always held. He sees in stead the rather sudden
creation ... of a novel doctrine at the end of the thirteenth century” (p. 273).
“He can see that the first protagonists of infallibility made use of earlier
elements of Christian thought in constructing their thesis. The principal
doctrines they relied on were the old ones regarding the primacy of the Roman
see and the indefectibility of the universal church, ...” (p. 274). That the
expression ‘primus inter pares’—which is acceptable as a title for the pope
in the eyes of many Orthodox today—implies authority (2Z0vueta) is indicated
by the refusal of some monks on Mount Athos to mention the name of Patriarch
Dimitrios in the Liturgy, after he had greeted Pope Paul in this way. Cf. P.
Duprey, WF., «Brief Reflections on the Title: ‘Primus inter Pares’, in One
in Christ 10(1974) 11. However, this ¢Zovot« is not the same as infallibility.
208

partly accepted!. The Roman Church always recognized the

ordinations and sacraments in the other Churches if certain condi-
tions were fulfilled. Somehow the Roman Church was always aware
that the Church of God was greater than the Roman Church. The
teaching of Vatican II is also a proof of this, although there
is also great ambiguity to be found there:
The Church... subsists in the Catholic Church which is governed
by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in union with that suc-
cessor, although many elements of sanctification and truth are found
outside of her visible structure °.
The Church (of Rome) recognizes that in many ways she is linked with
those who—being baptized—, are honoured with the name of Christian,
although they do not profess the faith in its entirety, or do not preserve
unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many
who honour Holy Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and of action,
and who show a true religious zeal. They lovingly believe in God the
Father Almighty and in Christ, Son of God and Saviour. They are con-
secrated by baptism, through which they are united with Christ. They
also recugnize and receive other sacraments within their own Churches
or ecclesial communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate
the Holy Eucharist, and cultivate devotion to the Virgin Mother of God.
They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits *.

The Church is thus wider than the Roman Church, although

the bond of unity with the Roman bishop is considered to be an
essential element in the Church of God. It is exactly a focus
on this bond of unity which narrowed Rome’s view and allow-
ed her to speak of herself as the Universal Church, and to call
her synods ecumenical. In Roman belief the unity with the Bishop
of Rome, is considered to be the guarantee that the Councils of the
Roman Church really express the faith of the Church in its purity
and freedom from errors. But can it be the universal and ecume-
nical expression of this pure faith? Is it not rather a western, a
‘local’ and therefore limited—although truthful—expression? 4

(eVOGInSKOnwant.celts 222%
2. Lumen Gentium, n. 8; translation in edition of W. M. Assort, SJ.,
The Documents of Vatican 11, New York 1966, 23.
3. Lumen Gentium 15 (ApportT 33).
4. Ocitskos, art. cit. 224. My book was already in its final stage of
printing when the letter was published which Pope Paul VI had sent to his
special envoy, Cardinal J. Willebrands, presiding over the celebrations of
the seventh centenary of the second Council of Lyons (1274). In this letter,
the council is called “sextum. .. inter Generales Synodos in Occidentali orbe
 209

The basic elements of the subsequent development of the East

were also present at the Synod of 879-880. The Church was consi-
dered as the communion of all local Churches, of all great ponti-
fical sees. They lived together in equality and the bond of love.
In the Empire they saw the most perfect expression of the sym-
phony between State and Church, the Christian Family, the King-
dom of God on Earth 1.. However, the East never had the oppor-
tunity to grow totally free from this imperial understanding of
Church and Society. It therefore never developed a theology of the
Council free from the context of the Empire. Throughout history
the Orthodox Church always tried to create ‘national’ copies of
this Byzantine Empire, in Serbia, Bulgaria, Russia, Greece and
elsewhere. Even in our days this mentality is reflected in the
relations of many Orthodox Churches with governments of a
non-Christian ideology. In the countries which were under Mos-
jem domination the Patriarch took over the imperial functions,
which we even see reflected in the acceptance of the imperial
vestments as the vestments for the patriarchs (and later for the
other bishops). The theological reflection of the Orthodox Church
became largely absorbed by the Western controversies, and the
desire to answer them. In the process the true Orthodox theolo-
gical issues were formulated and conceptualized in Western theo-
logical language and concepts. This undermined and _ hindered
the development of an authentic Orthodox theology. Examples
of this can be seen in the theological manuals still in use in Or-
thodox theological schools, those of Androutros, Trembelas, and
others 7. However, there is discernible today a renewed interest
in the Orthodox tradition, without apologetic preoccupation °.

celebratas” (Cf. Osservatore Romano, October 20, 1974). The theological

implications of this statement need further elaboration and could be in the
line of the thoughts developed here.
14. F. Dvornix, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy,
Washington 1966, II.
2. P. N. Tremperas, Dogmatique de l’Eglise orthodoxe catholique, 3
volumes, Paris 1966-1968; Xp. ANAPoyTzoY, Aoyyatixt tij¢ 6o00ddEou avatodi-
xns exxAnoiac, AOFvat 1907 (&vatvr. 1956).
3. Cf. the publications of the Orthodox Theological Academies of Saint
Serge (Paris) and St. Vladimir (Yonkers, New York) with such names as N. A-
fanassieff (+), A. Schmemann, J. Meyendorff, P. Bobrinskoj, T. Hopko. And
also in Greece at the University of Thessaloniki the renewed study of St.
14
210

3. AN ECUMENICAL CHALLENGE

Christians must aim to return to the spirit waich inspired the

Fathers of 879-8801. In such a return to the common road lies
the challenge of the synod of Photius. Sincere desire for unity
calls upon the Church in freedom, unity and obedience to the
Word of God to confront the discussion which remained open in
880. The ecclesiological questions which were not solved in the
ninth century, and which were finally going to divide the Christian
Church, are still acute today. They are the questions about the
criterion of truth within the Church. The Roman Catholic
Church believes it is obedient to the Word of God when it points
to the vocation of the Successor of Peter, as the voice of unity,
the God-willed guarantee of the right proclamation of the Word
of his truth. What exactly does this conviction mean? The Or-
thodox Church is convinced that this is not the right belief.
Her objections are not uniform. Some point to the Ecumenical
Councils as this infallible guarantee, others to the consensus fide-
lium which accepts or rejects a council. Others ask if the Church
needs a visible organ of infallibility at all. *.
Are these two positions irreconcilable? Is the catholicity of
the Church contradicted when God’s Word is truthfully interpre-
ted by an ‘organ’ of this world? Can it not be God’s Will that such
an organ exactly represents catholicity? Is this not the content
of the infallibility of the consensus fidelium? Is this not the content
of the prerogative of the Pope when he interprets the faith of the
Universal Church? Is it against orthodoxy when an organ of
this world guarantees faithful interpretation of the gospel? But
is not the guarantee of God himself given to the Church ? “TI will be
with you till the end of the world”. If God is a God of salvation,
should then this salvation not be guaranteed in a way that is vis-
ible, human, of this world and profane? These questions are not
intended to suggest an answer. The discussion should remain open.
An open discussion on these questions does not imply the
denial of one’s own tradition, whether it be of the East or of the

Gregory Palamas is a proof of a return to their own tradition. This is being

carried out under inspiration of P. Christou, G. Mantzarides, and others.
1 Ocirsk on, arti cits 227.
2. K. Parapetrou, “Die Sakularisation und die Orthodox-Katholische
Kirche Griechenlands” in Ayrios 3(1963) 199f.
 2411

West. Thus the Western Church does not have to devaluate the
synods held after 787. They can be seen as the expression of the
true Church, of the true faith, but local expressions and therefore
limited. Thus the Councils of Trent and Vatican I and II were ex-
pressions of the true Church, but in the local expression of the
Roman Church !. This is not to question their ‘truth’, but regards
only the degree of perfection in expressing this truth. These synods
could have been more ecumenical, more expressive of the whole
Church in its catholicity and universality, if non-Roman ways of
expression also had their say.

Return to a common path does not mean betrayal of our

history and tradition, but it demands confidence and repentance:
confidence in the other Christian, in his faith, in his good will, in
the holiness and spirit which lives in him because of his Baptism 2;
repentance for onesidedness, for the pride which hurt the other.
It means obedience to the Word of God, prayer that both sides may
remain faithful, and become united. ‘‘Perhaps it will be clear then
to us that the organizational structures of the Church, as well
as its theology, must be thought of as much more relative to par-
ticular cultures than was previously supposed. They are not the
products of a continuous and necessarily good development...
That which is unalterable in ecclesiastical structures hes perhaps
at a deeper level than had previously been thought” *.
Perhaps East and West are closer to each other than they
think. Perhaps a truly Ecumenical Council 4 is not so distant.

4. Kine, Infallibile..., 240.

2. P. Duprey, PB., “Aspects de l’oecuménisme en 1972” in Proche
Orient Chrétien 22(1972) 3-17.
3G. A. LinpBeck, “Ecclesiology and Roman Catholic Renewal”, in
New Theology 2, New York 1968, 188.
4. See the study “Conciliarity and the future of the Ecumenical Mo-
vement’’, Commision on Faith and Order, Lowvain, 1971, in The Ecumenical
Review 24(1972) 88-91.
 =

a ) upon we
ct ae aera ia 4 > ED coy ve oy
‘ ote a pres ha” werat ¥eqe Aine. 2080 avin ‘tri
’ ace 1 Nite igri ay i tele " om &Boyt

a a Wi Neus ; fy fil ES Be aii

a ie

OPA e¥ Fin Wei ey itty ‘oi‘Oty at at “fF

¥ ihe Pe eT ae ace dlaehirg ns ee hc nerg Neebai '
Ghia he Sis nee
Py TSI NEN AP pla aeet
‘2% | a arole ; bia’ rag’ fr 9 Hever rir ayrit webs as
rae
¢ nan ae ee Coy Perak. Ealgpere ban = mm? % one
BEN icLighilgc ute ash: Sghity Jaap e ae
tin nate
a3 ;

a Saeed
teinheNi ‘ pid iaminalie |
are: i ¢ ; eis " ie neat , vine Suk
ial)" i

a ia! eee! reeeree ee jeeta i 7a ae

Ey wien oti’ i 5 : fae “i
ES whe: 7
Re Pa

: . or aes" eh Neat i Ye!s sina ait’ hai ;

Pei illilkAi MRM Re RYShen hated

DEOL ik. hecsins es Taste Sahih |
Pe) ae vis ai aaydt gti ; atctne wads
ae
is eet #wekeiie' Wate
i wn so to y ou ial
a se om ran ae are else ie.
Ss EDPdpeanbte
AIR Ueda, Ste stun!)
Lge | Hileaams
Flaasbatiedey|teehee
aj . iy ar we a 2 SCONE eniite bn

"ila aa ith PT ees OT Beeh]

cy» vl a { Se ‘ns Heese
ae Peel US a Ie e 2 Aga teases. a Ei
q>- a2 me ~*~ ts nn Pe — ae hag tin sslanarcabies Rees »

"98 eee tee aor af ae Soothes ye

tis ba ean ' - tit lew oral. 1“ihe 6 of 4 tage, 4e,
‘adie in,
petare Sha he wer ks Aarts 4a seat‘edn ‘© ‘a
ac ye ws ste f. ¥ wtonh, 7 o
7 falevileeie tis: i Pap ce
no - »
a “ste
“cane
eee - a iF “of ee Sahai

2 ha abi tote oe )
| oe ie
oa agen si - oe ie
os a oo SN eretitgili ih
 APPENDIX

The two versions of the Papal Letters (cf Chapter II page 40 ff.) are printed side
by side. The text of the Roman version is the critical edition, published byE. Caspar
in the series Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolae VII 167 - 190. The Constan-
tinopolitan version of ‘the letters follows the edition of the Greek acts by Hardouin,
in Mansi XVII 373 - 524. The text of the Commonitorium, the Horos and the canons
of the Photian synod are also given according to the edition of Mansi. We have taken
into account the small corrections in the edition of Monumenta Germaniae Historica
whenever it gave this text of the Greek acts, and also obvious typografical errors
have been corrected.
In the note we refer to the variations in the edition of the Greek acts by Patri-
arch Dositheus of Jerusalem, in Téuoc yaeac, &v @ nequéyovtar ai émiotodai Pwtiov
Bante ice , Phuvix, 1705, 43 - 49 (the letter to the Emperors), 49 - 52 (the letter to
Photius), 65 - 67 (the letter to the bishops of Constantinople), 76-79 (the com-
monitorium). 76 - 79 (the horos), 90-92 (the canons). All variations are given.
Whenever a word is missing in the edition of Téuoc yap&% it is printed between [_ ].
 di Pee “a

ed diate mie fone ea el ae inevel

ee Le coll a a Sy neers <7 i.
» lta hay rE id i oh) age Adah De y! eget
he te, ys ae as rz Wy uy Doall f. 1 Lavy ot eee
adv. recyzd=

a inte th ee 4A re wt cA) * ts ay - vets Peet, FP kien

vy OS Trt v0 ape, Hy hoe RIT AEH es a: at ete ma.

ily met Pies TAL Wet ate . Be aii yeas
eke
nl Be
say ih + 7 us oFrt ee. epi ; aw. ac “abs
—_— ——]

My eh Ae Gettin welts sD Pe = el arta de

“hates Fy? aver ite ein ze shee &. are =
a) BAe ae a
nee
ag) Fe isop teh :
obec: RIS GA it: a) pie
ey F Hey ye ath 2% c , ieustale fie. oY ae

? =

ro)

( ;

i) t
oO

. Al ic ae fle

> Le
aif Vee
- and

i i “
> :
i A, [

70
ao 6 i

2 ’

eA,
7a ',

at >
» '
is > :
™
;i
= - 4
ee v°
Pe ea Do
= ee
- ta

i Te
oe
a ely

a q A
a, os re
Le
: a ele ‘ «

a a 7

al
a a
es
Sr? 4
a pe Pays p
 I. LETTER OF POPE JOHN VII TO THE EMPERORS 2
CONSTANTINOPOLITAN VERSION > : ROMAN VERSION¢

IQANNH® AOYAOX TON AOYAOQN 4

TOY @EOY,
TOI TAAHNOTATOIS, ATAIIH- DILECTISSIMIS AC EX CELLENTIS-
TOIS HMETEPOIS [IINEYMATIKOIS. SIMIS SPIRITALIBUS FILIS
YIOIS KAI @EQI HTATIHMENOIS, 5 NOSTRIS
BAXIABIQI, AEONTI KAI AAEZAN- BASILIO CONSTANTINO ET
APQI, NIKHTAIS, TPOMAIOYXOIS, ALEXANDRO, GLORIOSISSIMIS IM-
BASIAEYSI, KAI AIQNIOIS AYTOYE- PERATORIBUS SEMPER AUGUS-
TOIS. TIS.
1. Introduction and greetings
To xabaoov xat bréornutpov TIC
éy tH alotE 6cbod0kiac tuar,
xal ThS copias, Inter claras sapientiae et
15 mansuetudinis vestrae laudes,
xal TO ev TOO-
Tous Hudy xatavoobuevoy yenoTOY
nal Srretnéc, 7
© YOLOTLAVLXETATOL o Christianissimi
xa wéyrotor Baotleic “Paouatoy, 20 principes,
aliquod cum puriore luce
summae devotionis lumen
putes Sixny év wesw TIS YS Ex-
Adurov TavTa Th TEPATA, cig &
oixovpéevy TapatetveTaL, TEQLAUYA- 25 longe lateque resplendet,
Cer. "AAAK yao obx év dvy, TY
MLOTEL GELVOVOULEVOL TEL T GAAZ
sig 6gButa dvet tH¢ oTovdTc
Sidxerobe, GAN er TO duMUATO

a) August 16th, 879 /

b) MANs!I XVII 396 - 408
c) MGH, Ep. VII, 166 - 176
16 Téduoc Xapéic: totic tedmorc
216

CV RV

Donoxeduatt budy érornodoustte 39

od Evarov odd y6oTov odds xaAc-
UY, CAA AiBoug tLlous, YoU-
aby, Xkoyueoy, ATAGS cimety TATA
Outv weta THs év oovdy xaAAOVT|C
sEawetat, gv ol¢ yiv@oxetar TO Se)or

Ociov Oepamevéucvov. OcoarredecOar

dé wadtota TO Detov Siayevaoxe-
THL ETL TH TAS ExxANotac adTOD
THGAG, OOuE O HAtos EMooe, Ev
609000Ew miotEt 4 ) quod amore fide, quod carita-
past

tis studio disciplinis eccle-

siasticis edocti
Kab TH TOdS KAAH-
hovg O“ovota xat sionvy SuateAov-
¢ Yr \ > Ul I

ous edyaptaTtyplous adTH Qavac

xa0? Exdotny Husoav dvapépery.
Avo tadtHy THY GwovoLay xal év
Th xa’ Outic exxAnoia do%o0at xal
~ 9, '€ ~ > /, < bed \

meutaveveoQat EumoBodvtes
Thy TOV “Popuaiwr ayiay éxxdnotay Romanae sedi
\ ~ 2. / bs / > /

reverentiam more praecessorutu

vestrorum piissimorum impera-
torum conservatis et ei cunc-
tam subicitis auctoritatem,
Sia TOY droxercorapiov Sudy xat onor
Derotdtwy youuuatoy Sudy
nxatehaBete ovvepyoy cig TO a7toU-
Satduevoy duty écouevny nat od
exQvnotcoav mexiatevxdtes, obx
HUTOL TEMTWS KOEdL|EVvoL cig TODTO 60
TO Erivonua érOetv, aA’ Ze Tov
TOO Dudy edacBc¢ BeBaotrevxdtev
elxovtes xal xxtaxoAovbodvrec.
"AAK yao &x moiov diWWacxdlov ad culus auctorem,

39 Téwog Xapiig: [mous]

57 Téyog Xapéic: Siayudtov
 ND — ~]

CV RV
TAUTA TAPEARSETS TOLELY, AELOV 65
Stepwrtijoa’ 7H SHAov éx Tod xoov- hoc est apos-
gatov tay arootédwy ILétoou, dy
, ~ > , Ww pee “A
tolorum omnium principem, Do-
xegpadny macdy tay ExxAnowdy mino loquente preceptum est:
teAerxey 6 xDELOG cite:
Tlofuouve te me6Bata wov. 70 “Pasce oves meas’. Quam esse
vere omnium ecclesiarum Det
caput et
Od ud-
voy 0& KAAK éx TOY Gylwy ovvddar
nat Sratakewv, Ett 82 xal éx tH ~l beatorum patrum prae-
tep@y xat 6000ddguv nat mateinay cipuae regulae et orthodoxorum
éctwv Aeortopatoy te xal dra- principum statuta declarant et
Taypatov, xaBds xat ab Detar pietatis vestrae reverentissi-
nal edoeBetc budyv ovdAraBal mi apices adtestantur.
LLAETUEOUCL. 80
Todto 88 motetts, tva mAgov TO
oteppoy Tig Tlotews buddy Sux-
Bowmevov éxrcuyy nal H medC
Ocbv cyary a&xéparog xal dudeav-
tos avadery Oy. 85
Oddév yao Te—UKEV KAO TEOqUE- Nichil etenim est, quod lumi-
OTEPOY 7) OlxeLdTEpOV civat TOS ne clariore praefulgeat,
év s2ovoty xal weytotais noyatc
nabeotnxdcty, 7) TH uxAAovH nat
OOKLOTHTL quam pia devotio
ths G0OHS miotEMs nal et recta fides
ch Teds Oeov &yary orovdaTenv in principe.
TO GeuvoveoOan Kat TO TAVTAS
dody TOUS év TH aDTH TMlotet TO
Qeq Autpedovtag TH THS KyaTNC 5)
ouvdéou.) TepLTAcKomévous TE Kat
OVOOLYYOUEVOUG.
Et guia pontifici nostri re-
verentiam hoe ardore mentis,

84 Téuoc Xaptic: &XKOEOG

87 Téuog Xapac: Tovs év sGovolaig..... naPeotyxOTHs
\ > 3 ,
218

CV RV

100 hoe religionis studio luculen-

"Eyxbpavees d2 ter vestris mellifluis litte-
zoic Suey yeduuacr xaOydvvBev- ris exoratis,
zee ual eapbévtes mvecod dixnyy
nal meth Tras THS nad’ Hux
éyrotatns TOV “Popato 2xxdn-
clas bwovonoayTes Kat CUULOONT-
cates Suavéatyuey cic TO TH
nap’ Sudy &ravta yeapevta TPO-
Oiuws xual meprynods TeTANOWUEVA
~ /,

110 quod paci et

utilitati sanctae Constantino-
politanae ecclesiae creditis
SetEar, uddrota TOU maedvT0¢ expediri, id nos ratione seu
narod erutyderoTatov july xal temporis necessitate inspecta
aio TOY TEMyUATOV Pop%s cic le
TOTO YEYOVOTOY.
cum sedis apostolicae nobis
commissae consensu et volun-
tate perficere iuri apostolico
120 decet.

2. Recognition of Photius
* fie

yoapas hyiv, vit hydy hyorn-

€ aa LAS ~ ee
Igitur petistis a nobis,
weve, iva d&mootoAina xal oUU- quatenus sede apostolica
TraOT, onAcyyva bravotZavtes suae pandente viscera pietatis
TAVTAS TOG TIS xa” Sua ExxAy-
atac, Scot yeyovaciy 7 dt’ tdto-
/ oe / a\ Io>
125
yetowy ev TaeaBaoer H KAAWS
la > / A Sf

TOS KRAVOVLKATC OMETEGOYV STELTL-

tag SeGaucOa nat TKS elonvys
fd y \ ~~ > Ul

xal dwovolas Peovtida Tornoa-

weOa, od why GAAG ye Kal TO
> \ > / \ \
130
ToUTOV Datiov tov DeooePEataTOV Fotium reverentissimum in pa-
noyrepéa TIS TOS Nurs xorvenviac triarchatus honore, in summi

122 Téwocg Xaptg: [xai]

125 Téuog Xapticg: 7 iStoyxeteas
 219
CV RV
wéetoyov xxl xAnoovduor xal avd- sacerdoti dignitate et in
Aevtoveyor moinoavtes é¢ TO ecclesiastici collegii socie-
Ueya tHS &pytepwobvys dEloud tate reciperemus nostraeque
xal THY TUN THs TATPLApYyelas communionis participem facere-
TAAL ATOKXATASTHGMPEY, CG AY LH mus, ne ecclesiam Dei tanto
H exxdAnota tod Oecd ext wordy iam tempore perturbatam pate-
Xpovov tats THY Deootuyéy oyt- remur amplius manere divisam
OUATOV %aL TOVHPGY oxavSdAwY 140 scandaloque commotam.
TOLKULLaLG TAPATTOUEYY SLaWévy.
“Husic 88 tic buetéeac yaAnvd- Nos itaque serenitatis vestrae
THTOS THY txcolav Tecadecauevor praeces congrua ratione admit-
as edAovov odcay xal Sixaiay tentes,
xat Oecoeatov, 145 quia fenatium piae memo-
riae patriarcham de presenti
vita iam migrasse cognoscimus,
TOV TE KALEOV temporis ratione perspecta
EreuTNSetov bvta, oLov xal TOly
3 Ul y ae \ \

éreCytovucy xal ydyoucOa ebody-

2 ~ \ > / ¢ t

TES KHL VOULLGaVTES KOULddLOV

elvan thy éxxAnotay Tod Ocod
cienvororety, aeoteltlauer aro- hoc modo decernimus ad veniam
xoLataglous Muay éxmAnoodytas pertinere, quod nuper de ipso
t0 Oéhnua budy, ci nat H Suctéox
\ / c ~ > Ree VE /
Fotio, licet ipse absque con-
evoeBerm Tov &vSpa ExBracapwevy
> tf nt Bd > /
sultu sedis nostrae officium
Zq0acev dmoxatactHaoncn uai Ted sibi interdictum usurpaverit,
Huddy, Htot Ted TOD TAapayevécOar gestum constat futsse.
TONS Nustépous ToToTHENTAS év 160
tots av7dé0:,

bums Huss ToVTO Neoamedoucy,

ode &x th Hpuetéoas advbertiac, non statutis apostolicis prae-
xainéeo &yovtes EEovoiay tobto iudicantes
TLOLELY, HAN EX TOV ATOOTOALKOY
~ > 3: 3 ~ > ~
nec beatorum patrum
SrataEewv nat tatoun@y Georr- regulas resolventes, quin po-
GUAT TAS KTOSELEELG PEOOVTEC,
/
tius multiplicibus earum auc-

133 Téuocg Xanpticg: xAnpovduoy xal uétoyxov

137 Téuocg Xaptig: d&moxataothompey TAAL
158 Téuos Xap%ce: a&moxataotjout
220

cV RV

od tTobs Deowods THs ExxANatac

> \ \ ~ > ‘
toritatibus frets,
Tons avenaBev rapadedowéevouc
L

dwovtec, HAN ev otg NH TOUTOY 170

axptBera drapatperctoc Siatyoou-
usvy SinoTe nal Avwatvetat THY
GAOXANELAY TOD GMUATOS THC EXXAN-
alas, TEbS TO GUULpEpOY KyELV
TAVTA TKO AUTHS Exetvyng Sida-
yOévtec. Kat yao 6 tho ev Nixata qui Niceni
B’ xavev obtw Ager: ’ Ezerdy concilii kapitulo II apertissi-
TCOAAGKUG ELTE ATO AVAVRISG ELTE
/ ” ba \ o / vy
me dicunt: Quoniam plura aut
dros Tg emreryouéevov TOV &vVIOG-
BA >? LA ~ > ,
per necessitatem aut alias co-
Tov TapaBatvecDan tobs ExxAnora- 180 gentibus hominibus adversus
OTLKOUG xavovas cuuUBatver. ecclesiasticam facta sunt regu-
lam;
Eve dé xal 6 mama PeAdotoc hine et Gelasius papa dicit,
Teel TOD adTOD A€yet, Ste Gov quod, ubi nulla perurguet ne-
Bia od medxertaL, dmetaTOSETTOL 185 cessitas, constituta patrum
StaweveTOoay OL TOY &yLwY Ta- inviolata serventur;
TeaY Deopot"
OoaVTWS SE xal 6 KYLMTATOS TATEAG
¢ I \ A ae EK ie /
et sanctus Leo eodem spiritu
Aéwy dv TG adté Staxcrevdetat praecipit omittendum esse et
Tvevmatt Asywv: “Ozrov od Te0-
if i Ag >
190 inculpabile iudicandum, quod
nysitat Bia, aocAcutor Siapeve-
Coad t > / t
necessitas intulit ;
twoay ot Oecpol THY &ylwv maTE-
pay, Srov d& dvayun xal Bia edot-
OXETAL, EXEL TPOS TO GUELPEPOV
TALS ExXAHOLALG TOD Deod 6 Thy 195
e€ovotay Eywv oixovoustta’ é&
> / BA > 4 BI

avayuys yao nat tov Ociov amd-

> ig .

OTOAOY Kat voUoV LeTABeons yiveTaL

nat Dire 38 6 namac tobtors inde et Felix praesul, decessor
ouvyyopet AEywv: Kat mepl tob- 200 noster, in sua decretali epis-
Tov xen oxévacbat, tva, drov a-
\ la ¢ id >
tola voce consona dicit aliter
TAVTHOY avayun, TOAKKLG at Gv-
Ul > U

tractandam esse necessitatis

199 Touoc Xapiic: mé&nmacg (always written in this way),

TOTO
 224

CV RV
OTAOELG THY TATPOY TxCKBalVwvTaL rationem et aliter voluntatis;
Od WHY SE GAAK nal N Kyla abvodoc id etiam sanctum concilium
h év KapBayevy Ac’ xeparate Ayer: 205 aput Africam gestum kapitulo
Keaevouey, tva of xAnouxol tay XXXYV iubet, ut clerici Donatis-
Aovatiatay méAty cic Thy éxxAy- tarum in ecclesia propter
clay dvaxaupwot, xatree momny bo ecclesiae pacem et utilitatem,
/

ovvodou xxDaroeBévtec,
t ¥ /
si correcto consilio ad catho-
licam unitatem transire volu-
erint, si hoc paci Christianae
prodesse visum fuerit, in suis
xal obvod0c honoribus suscipiantur, non ut
€ ~ , a, \ \ o
doadtat otvodoy Advovoa Ova THY Evw- conciultum, quod in transmarinis
ow xal 6udvo.ay tig ExxdAnoias’ partibus de hac re factum est,
dissolvatur, in quo videlicet
concilio statutum est, ut or-
dinati in parte Donati, si ad
catholicam partem transire vo-
luerint, non suscipiantur in
honoribus suis;
nat Ivwoxévtioc 88 6 mamas Aéyet de hoc etiam beatus papa Inno-
év TO ve’ xeparate: Odror of centius dicit kapitulo LV,
yerpotovnbévtes &O Bovacou tov quod hu, qui a Bonoso eretico
atoetixod deyécbwoay, tva uy ordinati sunt, propterea sint
Toa oxavdanra ev TH exxAnota recepti, ne scandalum remane-
aVAPVY). ret ecclesiae.

3. Absolution and acceptance

Kat ob wdvov év tobtotg xatmee

over ToLovTols Kal && adTHY odoL
2& aloécews H arootoAtxy adty
> € / ¢€ a mv iA

xa0ES0x xaDarocBetor THs ExxAy-

~ ~ >

203 Téu0c Xap&c: matépwy mapaBatvovtas

205 Ténog Xaphc: ev 7 Ae’ KapOayévyn xeqarantep
214 Téuoc Xapsic: Evootv
223 Téyoc Xapic: ev méuTT@.../...
214 Tépocg Xapéc¢: evoorv
224 Téuoc Xapéc: ‘Smo
230 Téuoc Xapitc: [ droctodixh arn xx0edox]
 CV

cractixis clohvnsg ppovttda torov-

uévy, yeiex BorPetag cpetev, HAAX
~ » > A

xal Gp00ddEnts tepapyaug KOL TA-

\

ToLapyaus cig aUTHY xaTapvyovaLy, 235

oreo nat vdv 6 evAaPEotato¢ Der-
d \ ~ ¢ > / oe) ®O /

toc, nal THY BoyPerav adti¢ e7tt-

KOACOALEVOLG ETNLVVEV.
OiSate mavtes Tov weyav ’ABavactoy
extoxonoy AreZavdeetac, Kueraroy
ce xat Lloavypdviov “Lepocokvpoy,
¥
lwavyy, ov _ ayery budy Xpvoo-
Up a € 2 / ¢ ~ xX /

otouoy ovoudCer, xal DraBuavov

tov Kavotavtivoutorews.
\ 4

Todtoug yao bd cuvddov xa0atpe- NoFieon

Bévtac nat droxnovyDevtas nat THY

aytay TOY “Pauatwy Exxrnotay v70-
Lg , ~ € , > / ¢

Spandvtas 6 &rmoctoAunds obtos Neo-

vOg GuvéaTHGe Kal TdS THY TOOTE-
oa TUL eravinyayey.
Ei ody of éx t&v Aovattotéy xat ob
éx
2
Bovécou
,
thy
\
yerpotoviay
1
deGa-
aa

\ r ee) , >
wevor xal ta TH Se00dSdZou Exxdn-
otas TepLBoAwy ameAaEvtes UO
is id 2. la € is

ovvddov ToAvavOpa7ov UO ETECAC

t y ¢ ec /

ovvodou déyovtat xal ev TE KaTA-

OYH TOY teogav TaTTOVTAL Sud TO
Thy éxxrnotav Veod adiaonactov xxl
\ > ‘ = 9) / \

oyLtouatoyv xabapav xat Erevdeoav

t \ a I

Tapaevery - ovdev yae OTWCS Bde- / > \ \ A

260
AuxToyv xal weLonuevoy Tots 6Pp0arA-
otc xxDooatat Tod Deod ae oyt-

232 Téuocg Xapa&g: morovpéevous

236 Towoc Xapig: [ome ... . Dadttoc]
239 Cf, 445 ff RV
245 Téuocg Xapig: cvvddmv
50 Téuocg Xapticg: eravéctnoev
253 Téuoc Xapdic: de00d8dZ0u
255 Téwog Xapag: TodAvavOommov m&Awv bro...
 223
GVi RV

GUAT EGOS TAOUOLETAWEVOS ev

exxdjota Oeod, xal oddSév teprtvd-
TEPOY 7} TEOGOLAgGTEpOV TH adtTOD 265
ayabdrnte ws exxdnola thy adtiic
GAoxAnotay év te med¢ Dedy
avarn xat tH med¢ Tov TANstov
dLopocavvn StacwCovca -,
TOMAG
: LHXAAOV Avdoac TOUS év de00- 270
d6bq rloter Stampémovtac, Biov te
GELVOTHTL Kat axeLBet moAttela me-
PNULowEevous nal oyeddv wy SE ex
t A \ \ 2 \

TOGOUTOY Wd te xal Eitilas Zoya

5 ye 9 3 \ ~ c ss
Larreacacbat, od yey mac0pKoOat Wo 275
brevObvoug 7G tio eituLlag Baov-
vouevous Cuya, aN’ él thy mootépay
avTOvS Eraveyery TULHY.
Nunc itaque aliis patriarchis,
280 Alexandrino videlicet et Antio-
~ cheno et Hierosolimitano, atque
omnibus archiepiscopis metropo-
litis episcopis et sacerdotibus
: cunctoque clero Constantinopo-
285 litanae sedis, qui de ordina-
tione beatae memoriae Methodu
et Ignatil reverentissimorum
patriarcharum existunt, una
voluntate parique voto consen-
290 tientibus eundem Fotium satis-
taciendo atque coram synodo
misericordiam quaerendo in vera
dilectione fratrem, in ponti-

264 Téuwocg Xapicg: exxAnotarc

266 Touoc Xapic: éxxanotav
279. Ci. 304 fh CV
290ff RV MGH has corrected the text. The manuscript gave: ‘satisfaciendo miseri-
cordiam coram synodo secundum consuetudinem postulantem
in vera dilectione fratrem, in pontificali officio comministrum
atque coram synodo misericordiam quaerendo in pastorali ...’
224

CV RV
ficali officio comministrum, in
295 pastorali magisterio consacer-
dotem pro ecclesiae Dei pace et
utilitate amodo Christo favente
recipimus et habemus,

4. Having the authority of Saint Peter

quia et vos, Christianissimi

300 imperatores augusti, qui sanctae
rei publicae clementissimo af-
fectu gubernatis imperium, pro
Christo fungi legatione videmi-
ni, dum pro pace rogatis eccle-
siae, et nos, quibus secundum
apostolum omnium ecclesiarum
Dei sollicitudo incumbit, con-
troversiam aliquam in ecclesia
Dei amplius remanere nolentes
310 hune ipsum patriarcham cum
omnibus sive episcopis sive pres-
byteris seu ceteris clericis
et omnibus laicis, in quos iu-
dicii fuerat censura prolata,
315 ab omni ecclesiasticae sancti-
onis vinculo absolvimus sanc-
taeque Constantinopolitanae
ecclesiae iudicamus recipere
Kabaneo yao 6 doatodixos O06- sedem Dominicique gregis esse
vo obtoc AaBay tag xAsic THs 320 pastorem, wlla scilicet potes-
Baotheiacg THY ovoaray tate fulti, quam ecclesia Dei
toto terrarum orbe diffusa
credit nobis in ipso apostolo-
AOA TOD rum principe a
MOMTOV nal weydhov Goxiepews 325

319 Touog Xapaic: xaOdrak,

O AaTOGTOALKOG ODTOG Dodvos
€ > \ e Ld
 225

CV RV
“Inoo’ Xovotod did tod xoovyaiov Christo Deo nostro esse conces-
tov anootodwy [létoov, cindvto0s sam eodem Salvatore beatum
TPOS KUTOV: Petrum apostolum prae ceteris
specialiter delegante:
Got dow TAS “AEC (se)ise)SS “Tibi dabo claves
TIS Baotrciag THY OdoavO ™ xat regni caelorum et quaecumque
dv &v SHons Et THS YHc, Eotae ligaveris super terram, erunt
dedepevos ev Tots OdpaVvOLC ligata et in caelis et quae-
nat dv &v Aboys Ext tHS Vic, cumque solveris super terram,
Zora. Acdupsvos ev ToIg Odpavoic erunt soluta et in caelis’.
éyer EZovatav xabdrov dSecuety te
“aL AvVELv, Hal xaTR TOV TEOMATHY
*Tepeutav éxorCodv xal xataov-
TEVELY.
340 Sicut enim ex his verbis nil
constat exceptum, sic per apos-
tolicae dispensationis offi-
cium et totum possumus procul
dubio generaliter alligare et
345 totum consequenter absolvere,
praecipue cum ex hoc magis
praeberi cunctis oporteat apo-
stolicae miserationis exemplum.
Ata todto xai nueis TH
advbertia Tod xoevpaiov THY az0- 350
tohwy
otédwy Ilétoov yow@mevol, ete
Ilétoov yowmevol, were.
maons ral Hutic dyrmtaryns Exxry-
otas tmaceyyvaucOa buiv, xot de’
Sudy tot te &yrmTators adeAPOtC
KA CVAAELTOVEYOLG NUGV TATOLAP- ise)orOr

yas "Arefavdpetac, “Avtroyetac,

"TeQocorvpov, xal TOLG i\DLTIOLG
doytepedat te xal tepetior, xat
TaveTl TH TANOMWATL TIS ExxAnotac
KovotaytivoumoAt@yv, Owovonoul 360
\
nal dwopoovijon uty, UaAAoV dé,
Ve ~ ew ~

<6 D6 év mow, otc Srets ECyTH-

~ ~ ~ <2 ty a

cable’ xal medtov wev arodeacvat

a \ ~ \ > QLe 6
 CV RV

Dotrov tov. Oavpaowmtatoy xat

, \ / \

edaaBéotatov doyrcpéa Yeod xat

bed %

TATPLAPYNY AEAPOV VULWY KAL

/ >> \ ¢ ~ \

ovAAEertovpyov, Kal THs KoLvevlas

aHg TPOSG THY Kytav THY “Paoyatoy
ExXXANOtAY GLLULOLOOY TE KAL ODUL-
UsTOYOY Kal XANOOVO|LOV" ue Te 370
Thy dAAny apsThy THY TEOGOVEXY
adte), xal TO TH Oxdvdara Exrrodav
> ~ \ \ A tf > \

vyevecOan, xal To THY cionvyy TOD

Oeod xat ayamny THY Elc HAANAOUS
~ No. / 5 > bs 4,

év buty putevO7var. AéEaobe de

adtOY ASLOTAXTO YYOUN Kal &vau-
pLBOAm cyan nal MlotEL” TaVTH
naxtas xat SorrdtyHTOS toy xa!
, \ / xv \

dupyztas xal auprBoAtac ex TOV

/ \ age 2 / > ~~

XKOSLOY OUOY ameAwvovTec, xxDac 380

auToy
>_\
amedéGato
> (bee
xat AGREn TOV
Conder
‘Paouat-r
ay éxxdnota.
AvauavOdvouey yao ayedov maec
> A / A \ x

TAVTOY TOY TODS NuxS ex TV adTOOL

QOLTOYTWY TOY KOM TKS! TEO-
TEPHUAGL TOLG xaTX Dedv xoway.
Todto yév copia xal ovvéoet TY;
mecol TH Acta nat ta dvOoaziva
. \ ~ \ i > y

! L : ~
TaVTOY Stapéetv’ TOUTO SE\ Tepl\ ce)le So

THY KAANY TOAKTLANY KOETHY RAL

aK bla 4," > \ \

ETLeAcLav TOV Oelwv EvTAAULATOYV

aveTatoyuvtoy éoyvatny SiaBowmsevoy.
Kai od dtxarov éxptvauey elves,
\

TOLOUTOV KAaL THALKOUTOV &vdoK 3995

nal &roantov Sraeverv’ aAN’ ep”
x

OUNAOD tH xa0” bude ExxrAnolas

€ ~ ~ 3 F ~

376 Tonos Xap%c: ddtotdxten xal dvauerBdrAm youn xal aycry

390 Téuoc Xapie: Sirapgowy
395 Touoc Xapac: [xal maAtxobrov], &vSex doyov
397 Touocg Xapic: dbyrotc
 227

GY RV
Ta Aw avartsBévta nal dvordudavera,
tH te 0TH ovvnby, xa! 02d ola
tepeVor xal doyteoeiaw Zora, 400
dtatoattecban.
Awd rédw tov adrov eravarkausd-
VOVTES AOYOY, TEdS Sudo dravtac
AEvouev’ déEao0e tov kvSex% &r00-
OnolLaTW<. 405

5. Rejection of the Synod of 869

Mndeic meopaciCéabw tas xxv” adrod

yevouévas adixoug cuvddouc. Mydelc
@G TOL TOANDIC TOV KYEAaLOTEPCOY
SOxEL, TASTae THY TOO
Soxet, pO NUdY
NULOY WLaxKotoy
wan
aoytreoéwyv,
oxyteoéwv, NuxoAcov
Nixodcov tété onusonus xa.txa Nam et legati sedis apostolicae
ASptaved, xatabynptocis aiticobw.
> AS and i / > / 6
ab antecessore nostro, Hadriano
O86 yao anedeixOnoar nag’ abtmy ta videlicet almifico praesule,
xata tod ayiotatov Pwtiov tveerv- Constantinopolim directi synodo
bévta. Mydsic tag xav’ abtod tbidem peractae ‘us que ad volun-
YELOOYOAPIAS DUOV, APoourjy THY 415 tatem poniificis’ vigilanti
OOS ABTOV TE AL T100G GAA AOU studio subscribserunt, nec ab
\ > ta \ \ = /

oxtoudtoy sotto. [lavta yao apostolico ... manere, quia

rémavtat xat EEwotodxiotau madvta sedet beati Petri caelestis
TA HAT ABTOO HxCOWTAL Xai )YOELO- regni clavigert potestatem
tat. Lavra Ov judy tév éhayiotor 420 habet ligata quaelibet pontifi-
év TAG YEO TO xoovPalov Té- cum congrua estimatione absol-
Bertat, xat dv avrod év totc vere,
pos “Inood Xerotod tod &vod
Tov De0d tod alpovtog THY KUKETLAY
TOD ZKOGLLOD. 425
AégEac0e ody adtov brtiaws yeootv
adeApoy Suétepov nal ovAAELTOUEY OV.
Ag&acbe coyrepéa cod &reurrov.
AéEacbe ratercpyny tis xa8” budic
f

407 Tépoc Xapag: vyeyevnuévac

412 Téu0g Xapic: anedéyOnouv
 CV RV

éxxdyolac. Kue@oate mp0g a0TOV 430

> \

KATHY, ThOTLV, Kal THY LET EDAA-

> cA

~ \
Belas Smaxoyy, xal Sv abtod med¢
Thy aytav Tv “Powatoy exxaynatay.
\ c i, ~ € / 2x + / ‘

‘O yap éxcivoy wh arodeyoucvoc,

SHAov
~
Sti
«
ovdE TA TAG” NUY
~
Kal \ 439-
THs alas TOV “Pouatwy éxxaynotas
Teel adtOd bypraVevta déyetau.
\ > ~ / ie

Kat 0d mpd¢ Huxs 6 torodtog TOASLOY

AvarAaUBavetat, HAAR TEOS TOV KYLW-
* / >. \ \ \ € y

tatov [létpov tov anéatoAov, wxrAov 440

S& medg Xototoy Tov vidv tod Oeod,
Tov OUTH TLnoavTa xal Sokdcoavta
Tov HVTOD ATbdGTOAOY, WS EXELY aD-
tov 2Zovotay Seoucty te nal Aven.
445 quippe cum constat mul-
tos iam patriarchas, hoc est
Athanasium et Cyrillam Alexan-
drinos Flavianum et Johannem
Constantinopolitanos et Polli-
chronium Hierosolimitanum
synodice damnatos per aposto-
licae sedis postmodum absolu-
tionem restitutos incunctanter
fuisse.

6. Exhortation to the Emperors

Kat todto dé avautuvnoxcoban 455

TAPAXKAOVLEY THY OUSV cvaes7,
Baoctrctav. "Ex mécov yodvou Tx
i > / I \

oxavdarn xal th oyfouata ev TH

xa0” Sux ExxAnota maperceADdvtx
Ss bad > , t

THY THUTHS CAoKANotay AvUatvetar. 460

435 Téuoc Xap%e: [67]

438 Touocg Xapic: huts tov méAcuov 6 torottosg dvadauBdvetar
445 Cf. 239ff CV
 CV RV
in I QL ~ + OX
OUTWMY OF TOY KRAKOV ALTLOV ODSEY
Gro xabEotyxev, AR’ 7 +0 TAQa-
déyeoOan Sux tobs Bactrcis BAa-
OONULLAS Kat cuxopavTing xaTX TOY
KOYLSOEWY KaL TATOLACYaY Sudy 465
xal TOY AoLTEY Leogwv TOU Dod:
KAL TO OALYWOWS Eyetv VILA Teel
\ a / y € ~ \

THY cig adTOLS ayarHY Kal ThoTLY

Kal TITY xal svAcBerav. Ard
tustevouey TO Octov budy xektoc 470
ao TOD Vv “Action TA OTA TIS
colyptotov Baotrstac Say tate
Q , , € ~ ~

TOY TOVNPGY Exetvev xal yaLoe-

xdnxov ao@mwy xaTa TOV KOYL-
epéwv TOD Deod draBorntc xat 475
OVROPAVTLALG HAL OS KOS Kal
wvabog nal &otedmaov adTOUS TE
xual TaS ToVNEaS BoAtdac THY A-
yoy aot&y doméureoQan" tuay
TE TOUS TATOLAPYAS VUOV, KAL Ed- 480
\ , € ~ \ > >

oéBeobar, xual Oo matEeAs oixet-

yd \ LS / > /

ous AoyiTecBan, xal ag weottaG

Aree \ e ,

Deod xai dvOommeay edAaBetoban.

At Sean > ~ ery LZ
UTOL YXO KYPUVTVOUGLY UTEP TWV
Yuydy budy, tk TedG GwtHELav 485
Sudy det ELartovpevor aed Beod
¢ ~~ +PO Make Si08 Uy ‘ ? land,

KAAK KHL TEOL TV, GIG ELKOG,

> \ \ \ ~ fe 3 ,

COAAAOUEVWY LILLY, EV TOOGXOOU

INN i ¢ Lad > he

op.att Oeod, Ovotacg adté meocpé-

oovoty bmte TH¢ TOS Sudo xaTaA- 490
aying, edtaatov bwiv to Oetov
xabrota@vtec. OD wovov dé, aAAd

461 Téwos Xagie: nanady ody xxBéotyxev attrov;

475 Téwosg Xapie: Sra Boaje ; ‘
476 Téuog Xapuc: GvKOpAVTLAS
477 Téposg Xap&c: LvG0G
480 Ténog Xap: [ed]
230

CV RV

nat brée edotabetag nat Suxovis

Tod xpKTOUS SUdY, Kal TIS KAT
~ ~ ~ >

2x ody vinns nal TpoTALOPOPLAs, iNee)Orv

~ ¥

Zab cotyolac T&VTWY TOY YOLOTLA-

vv, adtol Teds Tov PLAcvOPwrov
Oebv Hudy meecevovowy. “AAAX
~ \

nat sionyytal xal diddoxaror bUdy

yenwatiFovaty év oic TxpatvovoLy 500
Moat Te Owas TATA, & Kal THY
év oveavotc Baotrctav buty 700-
Esvovdar. Ipd¢ tovtors xa u-
Aodvtes Sas bso TOUS KAAOUS
yiooxovtat. Od yao THY Tay ov= Or

KOAAKWV PLALAV ETLOTAVTAL PLAELY

/ / > / ~

Sac. “AAN Hy sdtdakev adtove

>
Incovs 6 Xeratd¢ Sta THY KYtov ~~ ig \ \ ~ ce /

AaVTOD KTOOTOAWY.
Od xen odv rapopacbat tobe maTP~L- 510
Kpyas VUdy dia Te TH HAAG, &
(2 ¢ ~ t Ae d AAS

mpoctrouey, xat did TO OUTS OUK

LAELY WG O KUELOG EVETELAATO.
i e - t BI 4

Kat yiwmoxete 6tt todto ToLovvTES

KxaL EVAKBEHC Elg adTOdS Staxet-
\ > ~ ’ > \ /

EVOL, ODX AUTOS TLLATE Kal

oéBea0e, KAAAK TOV Tats exeivwv
YEeaty tepoveyovuevov, xal U7ee
THS TOD TAVTOS a&UKETIAG TEOGHE-
pduevov Ta Ded) xal matot. “O yao
sf = ~ x Fare \
520
EXELVOUS TLLO@Y, TOV Dedv TILE,
> t ~ ~

xual O éxelvousg &amooTPEQ6-

wevoc, Tov Dedyv amo-
otpegetar. Tac Yevdsic odv
XAT AVTOYV OWLALAS xal LLBvELGWOvs, 525
> > ¢€ , \ = io

Lv dy ta Clava xal oxtonata

8 pes 0 \ Gi / 2 \ /

\ / > ~ > ,
Kal Oxavdanra ev Talc EXKANOLALG

496 Téowog Xapke: axdtor

508 Téuog Xapae: [6]
 231

CV RV
TOD Oe0d maperapéoovtan, xa!
uspttovat tov d&veabev S~pavtoy
/ s ” < \

XLTava ToD Xorotod, do tov dont- . 530

8
Ov, N OpEetEoos edachhc éxtoeréaOw
SB Z£ ee \ > J

Bactretia’ xat rao cuvaywwtécbe

TO AYLWOTATHO Dati TH aS5ekOG
mn 8 ~ ~~

xal ovahettovey@ Hudy, sic wav 6

ovvtedet sic &rapticuoy TiC 535
Exxdyotac. “AAAG nal tobs atic-
>

¥ PN ES , ¢
Govtas auto émimAynttet, tva
smpeoveotv. Ode yao moArcutc 6
6
cod OOBosg xat N med6 TH Det
bed i \ € \ \ iw.

evAdBern, Odx Eomppdvnos, Bactdéwy 540

‘
Kal Nyepovenv xal Koxydvtav ayave-
xtTOLs etreADoVon emrerxeatéoouc
cloyaouto.
Kat todto moidy cd to8t moouvnotev-
duEevos ceaute thy Bactrctav tov 545
oveavey, xal thy cig kel tod
KEaTOVE DUG Srawovyy, xal thy
cipyvatay t7¢ Bactretas Sudiv
xataotao. Eet éav totto uy,
TOLELTE, YuvMoxete OTL OVdEOTE 550
oylouata Aygovowy év tH TOY Kwv-
, re > mam ie r

OTAVTLVOUTLOALT@Y EXKANGLE.

7. Promotion of laymen to the episcopacy

Kai todto Qeortoa magawvotpey Eo tamen tenore ista statuen-
Thy Sudy Geoppoventov Bactrctay,
\ ¢ ~ 7 if
tes apostolica dumtaxat aucto-
200 ritate et sanctorum patrum ve-
nerabilibus institutis decer-
7
LYK LETH
Se By
TY)V
> y
aTeoBLwoty TOU
~ ¢
“YLG)- nimus, ut post huius patriarchae

531 Téwog Xaote: extperréo0m edochng

533 Téuog Xap&c: [76] (
585 Téopog Xapie: ele xatapticwov
537 Téwog Xapicg: éntrAntte
550 Téyog Xapie: morte
 CV RV

zatov Datiov xal ovarcitoupyov obitum nullus de laicis vel

Huay xal &deApod wydetc amb xo- curialibus in patriarchatus
OULKOY KELOMATOY cig THY coyLepa.- eligatur vel consecretur honore,
tinny tHE dnpilytar nal yeroo- nisi de cardinalibus presby-
TOVATAL, GAA’ F Ex TAY TeEGBUTEPWY
~ > ee ae ~ /
teris et diaconibus Constantino-
tay xaodnvaréov h &x TOY Eynata- politanae sedis secundum sacros
tetaysvoy év TH xaBoruxy ExxAy- kanones Spiritu Dei conditos
ote 7h éx tv tadtyS Sraxdvey H 8% et totius mundi reverentia con-
HAAWY LEOEWY TOV TEAOVVTMY UTO secratos,
” € , ~~ r € A

tov Oodévov KwvotavtivoumbAews

xata TOS Detous xal tepo0de xave-
VAS, WS &V UY Evavtlws TH ExxAn- quia nec praepropere
OLAOTLX EUTAELA nal TOS TATEL- ~~=> contra kanones ecclesiasticos On

xorg xavoor TH xAD” Huae StarpatTy- decretaque maiorum cito qui-

tat. Lloogpyeobar Sé tov toLlodToOv libet lector, cito acolithus,
L \ \ ~

Bovrducba xx0 Exactov Babuov tic cito diaconus, cito sacerdos

éxxAnatas SoxtuaCouevov, TeaTov vel episcopus fiat, qui in mi-
avayvoatyy, Exerta &xdAo0v00v, ~~]Or noribus officiis si diu per- or

cita dudxovov, avOu¢ meeaBUtepov,

z / z
durent et vita eorum pariter
t

weTa THUTA Extoxorov, SyAoVdTL et obsequium comprobetur, ut

weUnoTtuEHevoy emt” evAaBeta xat per tempora a maioribus insti-
/ > > > i/ \

AOYwv wWeAsty, Ot év Toc Srodee- tuta comprobatis prius morious

OTEPOLG TKYLAGL TOD TOLOUTOV Ypovi- 580 et bonae vitae meritis refulgen-
Covtos SoximaCetan Hh te dp|eTy tibus ad summum sacerdotium
aUTOD Kal H AoLT) Raroxcyala. postmodum veniant,
> ~ Was x > iP

Kat tovta 76) tedze Set tobs xa”

Oud matercoyas meogeyeaOar
wal quoniam non
wh aipvidsoy moponemaCewy Exaotov
\ > t
est subito praeripiendum vel
Ul 4

Babudy, usurpandum, quod vita diu pro-

bata meretur accipere. Nam si
in quibuslibet ecclesiae gra-
dibus providenter curandum est,
iva év TG olxe xvelov unddy ut in Domini domo nichil sit
evocOy covvOetov unte &taxTOv. inordinatum, quanto magis e-

563 Téuog Xapac: xapdiwartoy

569 Téuocg Xapic: Evavttws THs EXXANGLAOTIXTS
> ~ >. y
evTatlag
~
nal THY
~
Tatoixdy xavdverv
 233

ay RV
laborandum est, ut in evec-
O yao Exdve TavTMY THY tione eius, qui supra omnes
€ \ > / , ~

Baud aveoyducvos &xateyvwatoc

~~ >

gradus constituitur, non er-

év THoLY dmetreL EVoLoxcoOa, retur? Nam totius familiae
UN Tas ex TOUTOV xaTKAVGLC
a > t Sf
Domini status et ordo nutabit.
KVADY TAGHY TOY ExxANOLACTLKOY si, quod requiritur in corpo-
Swdayav. re, non sit in capite et inde
600 fiat, ut omnis ecclesiastica
disciplina resolvatur, omnis
ordo turbetur.
Kai ph dudte ets medvoray Et ideo hoc, quod nos modo
TOLOYLEVOL HAL MOOYTLOR THs ev pro ecclesiastica unitate et
TH xaP duds ExxdAnota clonvuxys oO pace,

AATAGTAGEE quam Christus Deus

noster nobis dedit habendam,
utcumque patimur esse veniale,
inultum postmodum esse non po-
61 0 terit, si quisquam id, quod
omnimodo interdicimus, usur-
Metioyv tov VeoceBé- parit,
OTATOYV KSEAPOV Huey anedelauela
dorep xal 6 maAat “AdSoravoc
Txpacrov tov adtot Oetov, Hy 61 5
TOdTO Duty cic ovvynBerav xai
navova AoytCéo8e"
Th yao orekvia dyaOa od Svvatar quia remissio peccati
VOWOS Elva TOLS TOAAOLG. non dat licentiam iterum de-
62 0 linquendi nec, quod potuit
aliqua ratione semel concedi,
fas erit amplius impune com-
"Aro mitti.
xe TOD xvetov Hudy “Inood Xer-
oTOd oTAdyyva xat adtol cupmabetac 625
SeExpevor cvveraOjonmev vuty ev
/ Ul ¢ nd >

597 Téuoc Xapdc: [wh mac] xat éx tovtov;

603 Téuos Xap&c: ppovtida xal mpovolav morobuevor THC...
625 Téuog Xapic: cvprabetag xal adtor
 CV

tobT@ TH uéper xal TO altya Dev

xat mep) TobTOV Horep xaLl Teo
Tov &AAwy tepsev 8& EtE—AG YEL-
cotoviag Ovtwy ErknoMouper. 630
"Ooric St &xd Tod vbv ToAWNoEL
zodto Stanodlacbar, dovyymentoes
avrg Zoran hex tod xavovos nal
THO” NLGV ETLTLLLA KRLL AATAXOLOLC.
AS ~~ ? 4 \ é Pat

8. The Diocese of Bulgaria

635 Hoc etiam modo ista excellen-
tiae vestrae praecibus moti
° Avodpev SE ual todTo Thy Hoy fieri iubemus, si ipse patri-
edogBetay, wyte 6 &deAOg nal archa
ovAAettoueyos HUGY Datoc 6
\ € ~ , €

KY LO TATOS LATE TUS THY AUTOD

Siadéyev dd TOD vv yetpoTOVHoy
cig Bovayaotay unte avToysroly
bd ‘4 y > ,
Bulgariorum diocesem,
uyte OL @wopoptov aTooTEAAOUEVOY
Ul > b) , > f

unre Siexdixy thy elonuévyy é-

Traeylav THY Bovayacowy wg tdtav
V4 ~ t e DENA
645
avtod: én” ddAotein yao Dewedtion
od det érrormodouety &AAous.
e
O yao év uxxapta tH uvyUN ©
\ > , ~ t €
quam piae memoriae Nikolaus
Toonyynsauevos Nuayv Nixddnog tate precessor noster Michaele
Sejoeot Tod Koyovtog Bovaycewy 650 ipsorum rege petente aposto-
Muyana &roartoruxats didayate To licis doctrinis docuit et per
toLodtov se é0oebev BOvoc xat venerabiles episcopos suos
dia THY edrAaeotatTwY adTOD e7t- sacri lavit unda baptismatis
OXOTOY EBATTLGE RAL TAVTAS TODE omnique ecclesiastica regula
EXKANGLAGTLKOUG TUTOUS TE KUL 655 et disciplina, prout oporte-

628 Téwocg Xapic: [wept]

629 Téuosg Xapie: tev 8% EtéouG
637 Téwocg Xapac: TH LUdv evoseta tva UNTE
~ £ ~ > , cua U

643 Téuosg Xaptic: amyopdpou

644 Téu0g Xapdic: thy meocrenuevyy
655 Téuog Xapig: tedet
 239

CV RV
KAVOVAG Kal boa cic THY YoL- bat, instruxit,
ottavey Donoxsiav cuvteAst maxoK-
Sedmxde eteActwoey amodo suo iuri
>

S )
vendicare vel retinere nullo
660 modo praesumpserit nec aliquam
culuscumque honoris ibidem
et Kat TIVES > ,
ordinationem fecerit - ibidem
TOAULIEGS KOHoTAGAY dD AUdY Thy sunt inlicite ordinati epis-
LN TPOGHXOVGAY adTOIC Etapylav copi vel sacerdotes [ab] archi-
xat YELrootovins xal xabreparaens episcopo vel episcopis, qui
EXKANGIGY “aL aTADS TAVTA box ibidem videntur existere -
ov expyy érotnouy. [nec] sacrum pallium, quo in-
ter sacra missarum sollempnia
uti pontificibus solitum est,
ipse patriarcha mittere prae-
sumpserit.
Avo mp6¢ Tots cionuévots xat
TODTO Duty TapSyyVOLEO, tva,
étav huets Tov viv érroxomodv-
TAG ELS HUTOUG SEYXANUATL EXAW-
> > \ > , ¢
675
KOTAS PWPKGWULEV MAL KAXVOVLKOLG
ETELTULLOLG UTOBAAWWEV, LY EL-
> i? € i \ €.

CLoOXWaLY DUGG XAKTAPUVYLOV, KAA’

iva ebompey xat buxe cig ToUTO
GUUTVEOVTAS KaL xaTaAXxOAOvDODYTAS 680
uty xal wn Stapwvotvtac.

9. Exhortation to the Emperors

Porro pro tantis perturbationibus,

quibus ecclesia vestra longo iam
tempore manet turbata, vestrae
augustali pietati obnixe sugge-
rimus, ut Constantinopolitanum
patriarcham digno semper honore
venerantes quasi patrem spiri-

677 Téuos Xaptc: SroBarodpev

236
Gy RV

690 talem et utpote inter vos et

Deum mediatorem precipuum di-
vina nobis, per quae ad regnum
perveniatis aeternum, sedule
adnuntiantem pio semper affectu
695 colatis et, ut condecet, in om-
nibus honoretis, quia pro tem-
porali, quem illi praebetis,
honore vos et hic temporalem
honorificentiam habetis et in
700 aeternum multiplicem procul
dubio recipietis ab illo namque,
qui glorificantes se glorificare
testatur. Nec eorum verba falso
prolata, qui scandalorum zizania
705 super conspicuam segetem Domini
seminare non cessant, vestra im-
perialis dignetur audire maies-
tas, nec pro talium susurratio-
nibus hominum, qui semper stu-
710 dent scindere unitatem Dei, ves-
tem Domini, ecclesiam Christi,
quique linguis suis semper do-
lose agere non cessant, venenum
aspidum portantes sub labus
~]—_On suis, animum clementiae vestrae
adversus eum aliquatenus com-
moveatis et summum sacerdotem
vestrum Dei providentia in eccle-
siae Christi regimine constitu-
720 tum sic facile exhonoretis,
quod nimirum vestro sancto 1m-
perio valde inhonestum et in-
decens esse videtur.

10. The Ignatian bishops and clergy

Kitt d& wagaxadhodper Thy prdd- Praeterea mandamus etiam,
71.7 ~ , S

Yerotov buddy Bactretav, iva ouv- 725 ut

 237
CV RV
re \
KENTE TOUS ETLOXdOTIOUG xual TOSG- omnes episcopos et sacerdotes
Butéooug seu culuscumgue ordinis cleri-
cos, qui de consecratione Ig-
nati bonae memoriae patriar-
chae consistunt,
xaL TOUS OlovdHTOTE TkYU.ATOS site
EXKANGLAGTLNOD EL TE TOALTLKOD
Toveos Soxodvtas
~
aD DUdY
Sen SS ie oneal
a&rod1-
F

, < SN 2 \
totacGat, Szov 3’ &Y Mat svtbc sive 1n ip-
Tov Suctépwv Ootwv, xal ayeynte sa regia urbe manentes sive
adTOS TPOG DUxS Kal TaAOMUVEGNTE alicubi extra longe seu prope
EvoOFvar adTOvS TH ExxANota Tod retrusos clementi animo ad
Oeod gremium et unitatem sanctae
xat Dwtio 76 aylotato TaTEL-
\ Sey, ~ be U
ecclesiae
KPYN, KOEAGH “al ovAAsttoOveYs)
stad Lov, revocetis et ulnis
extensis paterno affectu reci-
HAL EVOVLEVOY HUTOV- TAS “piatis et amplectamini pro-
olxslac dpyrepatinas xual teoati- priasque unicuique illorum
KAS TULAS al TOUS BaOuovds aro- iubeatis reddere sedes,
SMOSTE OTAKY HVA OINTLOULAY cic aD-
tous avolyovtes. AAN’ orep EoTly
\ > f > EK «A 2 \
ut sicut
eic Oedc xat Ev Bartiowa nal uta
= \ Ney / \ /
una est fides, unum in
totic xat adTOL ucts Ev gowéev nobis baptismum et omnes unum
2v
5)
XerotG,
a ~
obtw
oe
xat Ne.adtol \ draX sumus in Christo, ita et isti,
THs Swetéoac Detag Sidaoxartac qui ad unitatem et societatem
nal Taeavecears Ev ody Huty Ecov- ecclesiae Dei et corporis
TAL Kal gv TE TANPOATL THS ExxAy- Christi redierint et id ipsum
alas ToD Xeretov ovvapworoyoume- dicentes perfectique existen-
you xat ouuBrBaCduevor ody juty oror tes
cig TO TOD Xptatov Tavayrov oH
iva év TG) HdTEH vot nal Ev 7G adTE in eodem sensu et in ea-

734 Ténocg Xaptcg: sic

735 Téwos Xapic: c&ydyete
736 Téuos Xapiicg: mapawéoute
745 Ténos Xapec: [tovc]
749 Téuocg Xaptic: stc
 CV RV

BerAHuate Siatedodvtes SoEaCwuev dem scientia

coy éml mavT@v Qeov
\ > \ / \
unus grex effi-
xual wndets TOD 60 ciantur et unus pastor nec
Aowrod Agyy: Eye@ wév cius Kye,
~ , > ~
audeant amplius dicere: “Ego
eve 38 THabdov, ya dé Aro, quidem sum Cephae, ego Pauli,
GAN tva m&vtes TODTO ASywuev, OTL ego autem Apollo’, sed unius
Xototod éowev TavTEG TOD GTAVEG- Christi veri Dei nostri, ‘qui
Oévtoc vat amofavdytosg UTES NUOY,
fe \ > fy € A i ~
765 est pax nostra et fecit utra-
= \
Tov dix tod T&MoUE HUTOD eloyvo-
~ , > ~ 9
que unum’ veniensque caeles-
Tounouvtos nal xaTarrdGavtos TH tia cum terrenis pacificare
ve etch TIS Ving Kal TH Ev TOIG dignatus est, ‘qui idcirco
ovbpavotc xual cvvdpavtog Huds xal semel pro peccatis nostris
-
ouvdnouvtos dv Exutod 76 Dee) nat
Nez xe ~ ~ 7 \
70 mortuus est, ut filios Dei,
TEATOL MAL TY TEOS KAAHAOVS KYATY,
\ \ ee. \ > , > id
qui erant dispersi, congrega-
XAL KOLVOVLG. ret in unum’. Nec enim pote-
rit unitatis eorum firma esse
compago, nisi eos ad insepara-
~1 bilem soliditatem vinculum ka-
ritatis adstrinxerit, quatenus
Deo favente absque omni pertur-
batione vobis regnantibus salvi
et securi persistentes pro
80 salute vestra et pro statu
rei publicae iugibus semper
votis Dominum valeant depre-
cari.

11. Those who refused to accept Photius

Rd
KV
53 cow
OF VULWV
r
GUVAVOVTWY
> \
AUTOS Quodsi forte quidam extiterint
XaL TOOGXAADVLEVWY TeOTPETOUEVoY 785 cum eodem patriarcha communi-
Te Kal THEAXKAODVTOY Eig THY care nolentes, ammoneantur
Evma TIS ExxAyotas cvubLBac07- secundo ac tertio, ut sanctae
va Ouiv ody kak nal dtc, aAAd ecclesiae se unire procurent.
Kal ToAAaurs UY Bovrynldow duty Quodsi adquiescere noluerint
Oraxovont 790 in sua pertinacia manere vo-

768 Téuog Xap&e: [tots]

787 Téuog Xaoic: od88 dic
 239

CV RV
UNTE TOLG NUETEOOLS lentes,
yoauuaor teOaoynoar xal thy oi-
xetav xanoTMoxolar cwtyotav, GAN
év TH TeOTEOR aOTHY adOadeig xal
dAaToveta Stauetvwoty, TOUTOUS sacra eos communione
HKEASVOLEY THC AYOAVTOV WeTAAHVEWS his praesentibus missis nos-
TOD GHUATOS Kat alaTOS TOD xv- tris una cum synodo iussimus
otov nudy “Inood Xprotod aAAo- privari,
totous clvat, gms dv Evwllor tH quousque ad suum re-
Kyte TOD Oeod Exxrnota xai Dotiw 800 deant patriarcham
TO KYLWTATH TAaTPLAOYH TE AdSEAPES
xa GVAASLTOLEYG NOY. et ad sanctae
ecclesiae unitatem, cum prae-
cipue ipsi episcopi a nobis
805 sint canonice excommunicati.
Et ideo si eos in consortium
suum receperit aliquamve cum
eis communionem habuerit, si-
mili modo eundem patriarcham
810 cum ipsis episcopis ecclesias-
tica communione iudicamus
esse privatum.

12. Final remarks

Kai et0’ obtws t& Aotta TIS St-

natas adTOY xatadiuns év wey TOLC
TPdG Spas yeduuaow odm eypabauev, 815
iva wn TAgov TOD wETeOV yxvVvO7,
GAN ev xoppovitoel yeabavTes
Sic tod OeoceBeot&tov Héteou
L One ,
mocoButépov xal xapdnvareas ual \
droxotoraplov quay dmeotstamuey 820
soig Teel Edyévioyv xat Ilataov
DeoceBeotatous Emroxorotc, tva
e

794 Topo Xapic: Stapéeveory

812 Téuocg Xapic: obtw
818 Tépnos Xapiic: xapduvadtov
240

CV RV

ody avtois xabions dua TH evdy-

i > iJ , a wD.

wovay cvvdde xal TG KyL@TaTE Tea-

sordoyn Dario, dere xat ovdrer- 825
TOVvEYG Nav, Toy Ta Td&VTH epo-
odivra dvbataxtoy 600aApov Teo THY
~ \ ~

olxetwv dbarwdy Eyovtes nal THY

dvardSpactov raec Geod Suexdinyy
> , A ~ /

nal thy cvvetdyjow adt@y avert 830

OdAwrtov xal dvaxpwmTynplaotoy Guv-
TNpOdVTES TAVTA TH RATA THY
zxxrjotav KwvotavtivouToAtoy
> tf ~

Teayyata, Tk te vbv Emidedueva

StopPdaews
iS nal TK GE Einds aVa- 835
KOTTELY LEKAOVTA, ETL TH KAAG) KROL
/ I>: > \ ~ ~ \

ovuepspovtt TH TOD Oeod exxrnote

StaTpcEwvTar.
Td evacBic xpatoc buddy 6 odpa-
vos purceat Baotreds xal mavtoy 840
ztOv eOvav tobs adyévas SuetEporc
Tool broTKan.
DATA MENSE AUGUSTO, INDIC-
TIONE XII. MISSA PER PETRUM
PRESBYTERUM.

829 Téuoc Xapiic: Octav dixny

834 Téwosg Xaptig: taviv
835 Téuos Xapic: dvaxtmrten
839 Téuog Xapic: OeoceBéc
840 Téuoc Xaoticg: purcEou
 2. LETTER OF POPE JOHN VIII TO PHOTIUSa4

CONSTANTINOPOLITAN .VERSION > ROMAN VERSION ¢

IOANNH® BUS KOMOX AOYAOX 845

TON AOYAQON TOY OEOY ®OTIOI PHOTIO
TQI ATIOTATOI AAEA®QI KAT ZY A-
AEITOYPLQOI MATPIAPXHI. THE ‘PATRIARCHAE CONSTANTINO-
KONZTANTINOYHOAITON EKKAH- - POLITANO
STAx

1. Greetings
Thy coptay xalt opdvnow tig év
nN /
Experientia tuae prudentiae
Swtv &deApdtytO¢g ev Tots buetEpotc
¢ toad bs / > liad € i;
litteris pontificio nostro
AVLYVEVGAYTES OG ATEOTELAATE delatis satis ubertim comper-
vetupacw doree
eh
BoovthyNeeamnyov-~ 855
ORE
ta altitonantem Dominum piis-
cay && oveavod meutouevyy Te Ex simas ei grates agentes lau-
Beod nat mavta te TEOATA TOD Hyov ‘davimus,
TANOOVGAY edacBets ebyapLaTiag
nal ératvoy boos averéubauey TO
QeG TG) TKGL TOLS aiTODOL KATE 860 qui postulatus dat
shy attynow duddvt, coplay xat
\ y Nw uy \
omnibus sapientiam et in domo
xatoLniGovete év 6uovotas olxw, faciens unanimes habitare
OxeTOVTL TE RAL GHTOVTL TOUS év salvat omnes in se sperantes
arnBela thy Exvt@yv eamida ava- et protegit se in veritate
tiOévtac sig adtév, TG) ENTE TOUS 865 quaerentes,
Tovnoons cic Téhag &rwOovUEve,
uNtE Tos Kya0ods éumimtety cic qui neque probos
Tveavvida Smtéo.. . cvyYweodvtt, reos neque facit pios tyran-

a) August 879
b) MANsI XVII 412 - 417
c) MGH, Ep VII 181 - 186
853 Tépocg Xapae: Tweteoorg
861 Téwocg Xaoac: ddovvtt
864 Téuocg Xapue: dvatietoay
868 Téu0c Xapac: Oreo Sbvauty ovyyweovvett
242

CV RV

GAR Sixaroobyys SordTyTL nat nos,

Coyd xouratov tz dvOodmiva mavTa 870
StevObvovets xal xatevododytt. tamen iuste iudicans
Kat paxteros dot1¢ &v reo8buws beatis quibuslibet aetherea
év 4) vdv xa did wetavotac praemia et infelicibus reser-
Staviotay Tov TeabvTas év vato interim penitudinis tem-
ovoavots Onoxveton, odtos yap pore, nisi resipuerint, ae-
zy LaxaoLoTyte Srayevev aTcO- terna confert supplicia.
abo, THs cic TH WEAAOVTH
ALDVIA AVADALVOLEVIS AXUTPOTYTOS.
Totvuv totic me0d6nBetor yexuuxoty Praedictis quoque litteris
émrerxéowy Ouey emuBarrovtes nal 880 praeconia nostra legentes
70 év adrtots Boos THY Exatvary
Sudy xatauabdvtec, tiv Te dud- affectum
Oeow, Hv mods Huds Péoets, &nEYVO- tuum cognovimus et,
usv xal drs MOdS Huds evoeBAsS quam sis nunc erga nos devotus,
Hal VYLM<s OLaxXELTAL. satis evidenter repperimus.
Ki ta Zoya Verum in quo nobis nostra meri-
THs ToAttetag Hudy eos TOUC ta non suffragantur, Deo dimit-
ématvous oc syeaas cig Nuxeo Sta- timus et, in quo nos humanis
pépovtt, év Ovnodtyt. yao nat laudibus quicumque mortalium
TeETOUEV PVoEL TOY Blov Eyovteq elevare conantur, fragilitatem
od mavu TO BEBarov ev Tots Erat- naturae nostrae cum summa for-
VOLG TOLS xKAOtS Eyouey xal SeL- midine eodem Deo prae oculis
MO@uwev xal TO POBW ovveyducba Tod habito contemplamur.
mavtTa PA€ovtos TH SvTA 6POaAWOD
xal EpopGvtoc xal TA noUTTA nal
TH MaVEEK, UNTIWS TOLG avOEMTOIG
HAWS VOULCOWEVOL, EVOTLOV ADTOD
Etéows OPNGuEv, xal &vtl TOD TUYEtV
Erratvey cAnOuay nal d6Eyno EmrOv-
UNTIS, aloydvyny aloviay xxeTMod-

869 Too Xapic: Sixxroovvy xual doroTHTL

Se, s
870 Téwocg Xapic: avOoa@miva tadta
874 Ténog Xapie: Staviotjot
875 Téuocg Xaptic: Onoavetoer
876 Téuocg Xapie: TONG KAPTEOUS Ev LAKRKOLOTY,st
 243

CV RV
peOa. “AdAd tadta mapxympnowpey
> A ~

TEWS TH) TH TkVTA C1dOT: Ded xal uydé

if ~ ~

TOY NUETEOWY KyvoLay Eyovet. Tived- Scimus enim, ipso dicente,

~ ig >

GKoUEY YX adTOV AEYovTA: “O SYdv quia ‘qui se exaltat humili-

Eautoyv tarewollycetas. 905 abitur et gui se humiliat
ec \ he

exaltabitur.

2. The Legates’ refusal to concelebrate with Photius

”
Eypabas quty, 6th &ywwtary tod € = dé € A D ~
Quod dicitur autem sanctam
§cod KovotavtivoutoAit@y éxxAynota Constantinopolitam ecclesiam
év Gol ovveqavyce xual ouvjAVE cor in te convenire teque privatam
xal Ott TOV Dodvov, ov éatee7HOy>, 910 sedem recipere
\@¢ \ / a > t

améraBec, 5¢.hv tdid¢ cov. ‘Yrto

TOUTOY, AEya SN TIS ExxAnotacs nal
tf L \ rr > 7. \

THS ATOKATADTATEMS GOV, Hy cig TOV

Ldtov Qodvov xaréoTy6, 02) Thy
oy t i ~ \

edyaorotiay
> 1
é%
se
Says buys x
nat \ duva-/ Ke) on —_—

yews averéudauev. >

"Hew dé meet
= fe i be "HR be ia =
MISSOS que NOs-
Elye TO YOKULUA TIS DUG edAaBetac, tros tecum minime consacrare,
6tL Ol amoxoLatdovot Hua ev0Ews de adunatione omnium Deo gra-
obvx i0éAnoay ovddEitoveytjoal oot,
e) > rd ~ /
tias agimus, sed missis nos-
nal AEyousy TOUT GuUBHvat did TO ‘920 tris ideo de hoc mandatum non
UN TapaywpHoa. Nuaxc, & mooceTAza- dedimus, quia nil certitudinis,
WEY TOLToaL HUTOVS. qualiter ipsa sedes haberet,
°"Exet 7 évtory, antea comprobavimus.
Huay meo7jAVev, oddete &v dtota-
yuds gv abtotc ebeé0y, ovde AUTH Or

Twa etyov ay TeOtevjou TH evAa~

Beta cov, TAHY odde Hust TANEO-
oopnBevtec Tept TIS O7¢ adEAPOTH-
T0G, Ott TéACOV 6 Ded bréaTpEE
ce cic tov Bodvov cov nat ott &- 930
néraBes adtov. Emel dé xa0yxov
TOLOvVTES ATEOTELAaEV AV Kal TAPA-
uvOobuevot os xat ovyyatpovtes

902 Téu0g Xapdic: prdev

 244

CV RV

elg Thy aroxatcotac.y TOV Oedvou

~ /

cov xal év TOUT wNdév ayavaxTHons. I35

/ re

To yap botéonua xal bmée ex

>

TEPLGGOD aveTrANOMOy.

3. Those who refused to accept Photius

"Eu.dcdouev 38 xal todto, we ciot

TIVES OYLGLATIXOL ev Duty xal od
xa0eddovow, aAAX woxPodor WoyDov 940
UATHLOV KaL KyGva SraBoArmoy
XATABAAAOVTAL KATH TOV AEYOVTA
meogntyy: Areaoytobycay xat od
‘ ae
AATEVVYNOAY, Hote ATOGTAY xAL GUY-
Staotpéqety Exutots Twas THY
aThovotéowy. Kat écov cbqpavOyuev Nunc vero, sicut
EL Th GMOXATAOTAGEL GOV, 7V 6 de
Qeb¢ aroxatéaTnoée ce nal TH Evedoet pace et adunatione ipsius
TH Yeyevnuévy Tho ExxAnotac, tTocod- ecclesiae valde gaudeamus ita
TOV HAYHoawey é7cl TH Exstvav TOv 950 et de dissensione nolentium
OYLOMATIKOY ATOACLE. acquiescere contristamur,
quia, Salomone testante, ‘quasi
peccatum hariolandi est re-
pugnare et sicut genus idolo-
latriae nolle acquiescere’. Ve-
rum super receptione privatae
sedis nos debuimus antea con-
suli. Tamen quia obeunte fra-
tre et coepiscopo nostro Ig-
natio te Constantinopolitano
throno praesidere audivimus,
tantum ut pax augeatur et iur-
gia cessent, multimodas Deo
gratias agimus.
AN’ ad70¢ TH Evovon cor'coote 965
om > > \ ~~ e Uy x| ,

938 Téduog Xapkc: dc ef tivec

939 Téuog Xaosc: [xat
 245

CV RV
xal ouvéost xx! TG) SoOEvetr cor
rapa Qeod yaptouatt — th yao
Eyes, 6 obx ZAaBec; oldapev ac
OD KAVYAGAL OS UN AaBaov — mavTAC
uetéoyov oixcrodabat modc of xal
tods arb God waxovvOévtas xa!
Stacxopmiabévtac, orrdavOowmtas Tu autem omnium mentes demul-
avTOLG UTavolywy onAcyyva xal cens omnes patulis ulnis am-
OLXTLOULOY yonotéTHTL TeOLAauBavery plectere, omnes dispersos con-
GUVAYAYELV LY ATAELOONS, ce) ON gregare non desine, omnes col-
tva, Wc ligere sollicite stude, quia,
6 aywmtatos ramacs Aéwy 6 usyac sicut sanctus papa Leo Magnus
yeaper: Tove nev Cytodvtas ta- scribit, sedis apostolicae,
Trewwo0yvar Evearuov TOD Oeod xal inquiens, moderatio hanc tem-
Gwdvotav Cytodvtas Teds NUKS perantiam servat,
dexaucba, med¢ dé TOdS GxANovvO- ut et sae-
wévous TH xaodle cxAnovyaucda, verius agat cum obduratis et
MGWWTS XAL TOG weT&VOLAaY Cy- veniam cupiat praestare cor-
TOVELY FtlLg avLaTY TObs TeGdvTKS, rectis.
ystoa BonYetac dcéywuev. OD yao
EOTL KATKYVWGOLG TOLG LETAKVOODGL
nal Totc altodow grcov odx gotiy
aLoyYOvn.

4. Absolution and acceptance

Avo nal thy aderApotntTa aroduev Et cum non sit repraehensibilis
YeLoTOLlLyTOY avarauBavovoay Ted- 99) erga correctum quantacunque
Tov xal THY adTOD TaTELVWoLY, HY miseratio,
Sréoty did Thy cwTyptav Tod yévouc
Hay, un anakidoat én tH cvvedwm satisfaciens coram
xnobéat TO ei¢ aé Tod De0b &heos synodo misericordiam secundum
zal tv Bojfevay xai THS ayiota- 995 consuetudinem postulaveris
ts TOV Pwpaiwyr éxxAnoias tov

/
967 Téuosg Xap&c: trafec, ef 38 xa Eyer, oldapev
981 Tépoc Xapéic: Sexduebx
984 Téu0oc Xapic: avotk
985 Téu0s Xapdic: dpeyouev
246

CV RV

dmEoacma HOV xal TOV xdzCOY, Ov

Srte ths kyanntinis dSiabscews xx!
@tAtpov xateBarAcTO, TANEOPOOSY
areavtas év TH 6wovola tH mpd¢ 1000
Spdic nar TH Hwetéox ovynatabeosr,
tt, xxOds Hrnow mao” adT IS, xxl
ZraBec. Kat d¢ éotiw Bloc avery
BonPetv m&or totic adtxws TL TA-
Gyovaty, ovdé adTd¢ THS TAO’ adTIAC 1005
Boneiac Huolonoxs, dAAa TH avv-
coyla Tov Deod xxl TH TavTHS U.4-
ya xat ayave cig TOv Dedvov cov
aroxatéatys, THS dé && Etous cor
Bor Pstac xat ovurrabetac, Hy dv 1010
avtay Tay Eoyav xa” ExtcotHy
Huépay eriderxvouevoc cig TAVTAS
TOV HYOV avTHS éxméurerc, ac si evidenti correctione uta-
wn eTerAavOdvon, ris et peritiae tuae non obhi-
GAN Eyxovu adtic 1015 viscens
xal undéva CyurwO7c, wndé ex Tad nullus damna moliaris, quin
OTAKYYVO TOD eAgous EEwOHays, of- potius exilia eorum, qui tibi
tives Ews TOD mapdvtog obx HOEAN- non velle consentire dicuntur,
oav THY Evwoty THY TOS THY Oy studiose dissolveris
evadBerav odds d6uopeovijon, wxA- 1020
ov dé woxDov xat &yava xataBarod,
TOUTO Ev SidaoxaAlaug xual Adyous
nal praxoo0vum mapaivécer, ToUTO
dé taxed xal mooonvet TH Suucte,
iva xara tov dmdotorov 7) Tobe 1025
TaVTAS Yj TOUS YE TAStovas onevoNs
xedyou xal ceavt@ meocnyayetv
nat Sud ceavtod 76 Oeg).
"Epyouévey 38 abtéyv medc of xab eosque suis ecclesiis et hono-
dik God mpb¢ tov Oedv &rokauBdvery 1030 ribus restitueris et si, quia
AUTOUS EDSSxNGOV TKS TE tepatinxc spiritualis filius noster

1011 Tépuog Xapdc: [hugoav]

1013 Téuocg Xaptic: éxméurenv
 247

CV RV
TULAS RAL TAS ExxANatac aUTov. Basilius Christianissimus im-
Kat xa’ dv todmov 6 mvevmatinos perator apud nos pro te multis
Hudy vidg xal yorotiavixartatos praecibus intervenit, omnes
Baotreve Bastaerog meet cod HEtw- 1035 uno voto uno consensu et una
GEv Hudac xal elxovtes tH edvAdyeo concordia in tua restitutione
nat Sinaia xal 02d &peoxodoy convenerint, veniam pro pace
HELMOEL AVTOD TETOLNXAPLEV LETH sanctae Constantinopolitanae
sic sbraBetas cov. ecclesiae tibi concedimus,
. 1040 communionem quoque et gradum
coram synodo misericordiam
quaerendo nichilominus reddi-
mus et, ut sanctae Constanti-
nopolitanae ecclesiae digne
1045 praeesse debeas, consentimus.
Tov adtov tedrov xual c& mapexaré-
OaLEV UT EvNotxaxijour cig Tob¢
uaxovvOévtas ard God, AAN’ SroaTPE-
povtas GAopbyas xal H on ev TLL,
yymoiCoumévy evraBera Srtias yeo- 1050
ol brodsEaoOat xatavevodta, tva
TavtEs alatws Guovoncavtes nat
buodvynoavtes cig Thy ony Erava-
otpogny xal &roxataotacty tod Opd-
vou xal él TO adTO GuveADdvTEs 1055
Kony evpooadyyy xal Eoeris Nue-
cay nal dyarrudcems TavyyveLy
2uteAeoupey.

5. The Promotion of laymen to the episcopacy

Kal todto 82 dévodper Thy ony ita tamen,

sSerodryta adv huiv Oeontoar, tva 1060 ut deinceps de lai-
dnd tod Tapdvtog 2x Aaixdy undelc cis in eadem ecclesia episco-
dOpdov ext tov wsyav TIS APYLEPW- pus contra sanctorum patrum
obvi Bedvoy, bc Zo7t PoBepds xal statuta nullatenus ordinetur

1051 Téuocg Xapéc: xatavedout

1053 Téyosg Xapdig: [xat duopuyqoavtes)
1062 Téuos Xapko: [emi tov uéyav tH¢ deyrepoavvns Opedvov]
248

CV RV

Beod wsortetav éréyov, ava BuBaty-

~ /

TOL, HAAR nate BaOuov xal THEW

/

cig Thy Uinpeoltay teoBativey xal

\

Thy oixetav xa0? Exaotov éridet-

\ > ‘A Byer. >

xVWLEVOS APETHY OUTWS TOD KOXL-

ceaTtlxod Dodvov thy xaDidevow
auBavn’ 6 yao EtEowS HY dUEvOG 1070
EVAVTLOV TOV EXKXANOLACTLKOY NUGY
~ ~ id ~

xavovey toret. Kat Bovrducda

tovto TO oc, Sree odx EotL et omnis illa mala consuetudo
atovov & coyns év TH xaB? bux abinde penitus amputetur
” > > ~ 9 ~ ee ES

exxAnaly edvenuévov, amo Tod viv 1075

d&repaxtov dSuapevery. iuxta
Todto dé Aéyouev xata TOY xavova kapitulum, quod super hac
tov éxteBévta év cvvdde év Tots
\ > fd > 4 > ~
re in venerabul synodo tem-
xatpotc Adpravod tod &ytwtatov pore scilicet decessoris
rama xat Tapaotov tod év waxnpia 1080 nostri Hadriani tunioris pa-
TH LvAUY TateLdoyou Kwvotavtt- pae Constantinopoli habita
VOUTCOAEWC. est congruentissime promul-
gatum.

6. The Diocese of Bulgaria

Praeterea, sicut vestra pars
1085 suum velle conatur vires ac-
cipere, ita et nos diocesim
nostram Uulgaricam, quam apo-
stolicae recordationis sanctis-
simi domini papae Nikolai cer-
1090 tamine sedes apostolica rece-
perat ac Hadriani aeque bea-
-tissimi praesulis tempore pos-
sederat, summa nobis celeri-
tate restitui volumus et de

1067 Topocg Xapke: xa) Exaorhy Babuod d&veBxow enderZcuevo

1068 Téuoc Xapke: ote
1070 Tén0¢ Xapac: AnwBavery
1074 Tépoc Xai: nad Huse
 249

CV RV
1095 cetero omnem ordinationem
ecclesiasticam ab ecclesiae
Constantinopolitanae praesu-
libus in eadem diocesi Uulga-
rica auctoritate apostolica
1100 amputamus. Ipsos autem or-
dinatos ibidem episcopos et
omnes alios inferioris ordi-
nis clericos, ut inde se sub-
trahant et ab invasione Uul-
1105 garicae nostrae dioceseos se
omnino compescant, decertare
procures. Quibus si tu aut
pallium dederis aut quamcum-
que illic ordinationem fece-
1110 ris vel, donec nobis obediant,
cum eis communicaveris, pari
excommunicatione cum eis te-
neberis annexus.

7. Rejection of the Synod of S69

Thy dé yevouévny xata THs O76
evAaBetacg advodov év Tots avTOOL 4445
Huvowoaucy nat Eewoteaxtoapey
TAVTEAMS ual a&reBarducOa Sid te
TH HAAM Kat OTL 6 TOO NUGY Laxd-
oLoc Tamas “Adpravoc ody UmEvouey
év KOT}. 1120

§. Final remarks

Ta dé Aouad mavta THY ExxAnora- Reliqua vero, quae litterae

OTLKXOY TonyLATOY, bau Sinydoevaey tuae a nobis fore censenda
} eTLOTOAY DUdY, EV KOULOVLTOOLO
~
vel finienda expectant, dato
ie

yeabavtes, év @ nal mavtes UTE- ,

v
commonitorio nostris legatis,
€

yeabapey cic THY ony arodoxny

/ “4 A \ >
1125
NY
Petro
\
venerabili presbytero
nal émidedwxdtec [létpw 16 evAa-
/ ~
cardinis nostri diliciosis
>
 CV RV

Beatatw tecoPutép@ xal XKOONVAAL consiliariis nostris, quaedam

nal TOTOTHONTY NuOy areoteihawey scriptis, quaedam autem verbis
tots me9) Eiyéviov xat Tlabrov iniunx imus, qui juxta censu-
DeoseBeot&totg Emroxdmors xa 1130 ram nostri apostolatus instruc-
soToTNenTaIS Hudy, twa Tov TOD ti de omnibus cuncta Deo prae
Ocod dBov Zyovtes mpd OpDarkuey oculis habito contemplantes
nal Thy cuvetSnow adta@v averrOo- et admittenda ubi fas est ad-
AwToV ovvTnPOdVTES TaVTA TPOS TO mittere studeant, et corrigen-
ovuugépov 77 x00" butic exxrnotz 1135 da sub aequitatis libramine
duty drommjowot. corrigant.
cdc ce Srapuaceau cig tEAo<,
ASEAPE KYATEYTE GOLWTATE KHL GVA-
> Sid! heh at \

Aevtoueye.

1127 Téduog Xapacg: mepchutéopm xapdyvadrteo

1137 Téwog Xapiig: Siapvrctor
3. LETTER OF POPE JOHN VIII TO THE. BISHOPS OF CONSTANTINOPLE
AND. THE OTHER PATRIARCHATES a

CONSTANTINOPOLITAN VERSION b ROMAN VERSION ¢

IOANNHS AOYAOS TQN AOYAQN 1140

TOY OEOY TOs EYAABEZTATOIZ REVERENTISSIMIS ET SANCTISSI-
KAI ATIOTATOIS ITAXIN ENTZKO- MIS OMNIBUS EPISCOPIS ET CON-
TIOIs AAEA®OI= KAT SYAAEITOYP- FRATRIBUS ECCLESIAE CONSTAN
TOs HMON THE EKKAHSIA® TON TINOPOLITANAE SEDEM RESPICI-
KONZTANTINOYITOAITON KAT 1145 ENTIBUS SEU TRIBUS ALIIS
ITAXI TOIX AYTHN AITTOAEXOME- PRINCIPALIBUS ECCLESHS,
NOISE KAI TAIS AOMTATS AAAATS HIEROSOLIMITANAE...
TIPOTATS EKKAHSIAIX TEPOXO-
AYMON, ANTIOXETA®, AAHEAN-
APEJA® KAI TOIX AYTON TON ITE-
PATIKON ®PONON ITPOEZTOXI.

1. Greetings
Ta dytatvovta budy, &dergol cya- 1150 Quorundam sane vestrum, fra-
?

mentot, Sekduevor TIS Evmoews “al tres karissimi, scripta suscipien-

bpovotas év TH) wépei Derttov Tod tes unianimitatem atque con-
KYLWTATOV TATPLAOYOV YOK LULATH sensum in parte Photii in eis
Tavy ev avTOLS éyaoyuev, tv duotac plene repperimus indeque ob-
TaVTES ev KoLWOVvia TATEOS Kal iyBSS) nixe optantes, ut, quod par-
olxovuevixy cvngavia te TOD xuetov ticulariter hactenus, hoc ca-
judy ’Incod Xerotod poovuev xat nonicae semper et generaliter
otépympev nal & mpémer TH Suetéoy atque secundum ea, quae sunt
evoeBet diaBécer xal Cowwtaty
> La , AE
Christi Iesu et non quae ves-
ie fe

boyy xabéotyxev douodia, tva wy

~
1160 tra, pia animi devotione id
ul \

Ooty dv buiv oytowata, aA’ to

>. > ¢ ad a
ipsum, ut non sit in vobis
2! 3, a

vyivaoxnte Cytetv xat xpove xat

~
scisma, sapiatis quaerere pul-
\

edploxeu. ‘Hyctc dé rH ovurcaBete, sare et invenire. Nos autem

a) August 879
b) MANsr XVII 449 - 456
c) MGH, Ep VII 176 - 181
1155 Téyoc Xapée: mveduatos
 CV RV

TOV aTOOTOALKOD Oodvou utvovmevoL, moderatione sedis apostolicae

Honep ovuraayousy xal ovvaryov- sicut divisa contentione atque
wsv ert Tots SucoTHot nal aTECLou- dolemus seissa errore,
VIGUEVOLG TOD GOUATOS TOD NoeLoTOD
xal PLAOVLXOVGL TH TYG OTADEWSG
nal TAKS UXAAOV 7) TH TOD Not-
StTOv xpatety, obtM yalooey ev TG) ita gaudemus in
OVVOEGLLG TIS clonvns ual ayaTNS
~ U
vinculo pacis ac karitatis
conpagine soliditatis
Tis Werpitynt05 Sudv xal evyouclax
ree. > / ee ~ \ 2 t
fraternitatem vestram
TavToTe aSuarsittws, lvoe &usurtor
Me >> i ¢ ?/
sine intermissione inviolate
Kal &xsoaror SuxUsvorte xAxTH TOV persistere, iuxta apostolum:
ATMOGTOAOV “aL tvar Sik TrAVTOS 6
> / N er \ A <
‘Idem sapite et Deus pacis
Oeb¢ THs cionyyns cly usd budy.
\ ~ Ly a Vv >a ~
erit vobiscum’.

2. Absolution and acceptance of Photius

Toryapoty dAnPas h moAvpedvtt- Quod vero sollicita intentione
OT0G Dua Ex” KyaDG OLAoVveLrxta vestra
Hoar ayanyy Ov amodeiEews tod 1180 petit dilectio, uti
Haxaolov xal xoovpatov THY amo- auctoritate beati apostoli
otodwy [létoov, principts apostolorum Petri
ote Datiov tov ae
vobis Photium
, \

KYLOTATOV TATELAYYY ev TOLC patriarcham in

KALLAGL THS Erapytas TIS Kevotav- 1185 regia urbe Constantinopolitana
TLVOUTIOALT@Y EXKANOLAG aTOXATA- fore consentiamus,
OTAVTA KoEviomusy Te xaL GUV-
anodeaucba, todto dé mooftue illud animo luce
Kal AnwTcpotaty Puyy — clarius
KATEYOVTES TO Ev TH EvaYYEALM retinentes, quod in evangelio
ELONLEVOY TH) TOGTE) TOLLEVL, G 6 primo pastori Dominus ait:
> - ~ ca

1166 Téuoc Xapaig: d&recyrouévorc

1168 Téwos Xapi&c: u2.overxotar
1171 Téowog Xapace: ovvdéouc
1174 Téwog Xapie: TAVTOC
1175 Téomog Xaptic: Stayevyts
1185 Téu0g Xapic: [tg Error tars|
1191 Tonog Xaoke: TPG) TOTOLLEVL
 203

GY RV
XUVELOG AEYEL:
I vi

"Eya mapexdAcon meet cod, [étos, “Ego pro te rogavi, Petre, ut

tva wn exAlry f mloti¢ cov’ xal non deficiat fides tua; et tu
ov Tote éTLaTPEAS GTEPEWOOV TOG 1195 aliquando conversus confirma
pode Gov — amETANOMGaLLEY
&SeAPOUS emrnodonuey. fratres tuos’,
Tovtorg yao Stavactavtes Tots his hortatibus succensi, immo
, r \3¢e ,
ELOLG ADYLOLG RAL EGOVOLAY | potius corroborat,
Eyovtes évouvaunouuevyny, Epdcov in quan-
KUSLTTOL RAL AxaTHYVWOTOL SvvA- 4200 tum sine gravi offensione va-
ucOa Stauetvar Bonferav xal ovv- lemus, auxilium ferre tam
épyetav pépety MAot YOLOTLAVOIC cunctis Domini sacerdotibus
Thy &enynOetouvy cic mavta TH quam universo in orbe terra-
TEOAKTH rum Christiano populo numquam
warrota dé Exduevor TOts 1205 desinimus sequentes praede-
/ Nk / ~“

TOY TOO HUY KoxLepewy Deod mapa- cessorum exempla, de quibus

detypact, AEya dy “Adpravod Tod sanctae memoriae Hadriani
év paxnola TH uvyuy mama, xaOads papae in Tarasil nuperrime
éxetvoc erotnoe auvepynous Taoa- regiae urbis patriarchae con-
ota TO ev aytowg TaTELAEYN, OTyVI- 1210 firmatione haec interim poni-
XK TLVES TODS AVTOV TAOAYAS RAL
\ \
mus verba, inter reliqua
by ny ‘ \

OTKOELC ETCOLOVY. inquiens:

Kai yao éxstvoc 6 év ayloug TAT eL- Ipse enim Tarasius regiae ur-
aexns Kovotavtwourdacws Tapaoros bis patriarcha misit nobis
AMEOTELAS TOTE OVVOSLXA YOK UMATH OAS synodica priscam adimplens
TANESY TO xa’ oc, & Nucte SeEa- consuetudinem, quae suscipi-
(LEVOL entes et liquidius indagantes
xal TO OODOY TH¢ AUTO Ni-
\ MY >
et tam de confessione rectae
MY ~ E:) ~ /

otenc, bxeo éoye mel Te Ta Ada fidei etus quam dogmatum

Sdypata xal meet Tas ebayeis xal 1220
centas eixdvac uabdrtes nat edodr-
TEs obupova tar ayiov EE oixov- SanclaruUumM Sex
MEviZ@Y OvVOOY, synodorum et venerandarum
houcvicausey TE immaginum ovantes,
Kal GUVEPPOVHGAULEY, EL HAL OU% 4225
GOTOS HvEyuawev ODSE ATHOAYL WS,
5 U > A > ee) /
nimis iterum conturbati ac
Ste &O KOGWLKOD THYPATOS Kal
© ~ \
contristati sumus, quia ex

1209 Téuog Xapic: [Tapacic]

1227 Téuog Xaptig: xooptxod
 CV RV

Bacwdixiic Srenpeotas amd xadtyov laicorum ordine et imperiali-

nal od xaTth TOs MAO’ HuiV cic bus obsequiis deputatus re-
zov uéya Oodvoy dv7jrBe xavovac, 1230 pente in patriarchatus culmen
naréoty TaTeLAeyNS xal TO ev erectus est et apocalligus
hadtoar hy yarerov, 10 de cto7ry- contra sanctorum canonum cen-
COL THALY STLKLVOUVOY" suram factus est patriarcha et,
quod dicere pudet et grave ta-
det yao 1235 cere est, qui regendi adhuc et
sove Trowevas wy] Sudxoxopevous
\ ia \
docendi sunt, doctores nec
/

elvar, unde mod TOD waOety xa- erubescunt videri nec metuunt
Aetoban SuacxcArove, aA tar ducatum animarum inpudenter
Dewodouy, Hote uy Veptou abrove assumere, quibus via omnis
duaotiav éx tay uy@y, Oy Ert- 1240 ignota doctoris est, quo vel
otebOnoay, und cic Tov Babuov ipsi gradiantur, ignari sunt.
tH}¢ coplac, od Thy &yvoway Exovory,
avarydav oTovdaCovet.
> ~ if

AstPAN
yao
eidévat, dcov alPadeg xal pofeoov 1245 Quod quam pravum quamve sit
Zor au.a07 tTOv Octo dvta nat temerarium, seculari ordine et
AVETLOTHILOVA EX KOOULKIS TOKYLA- disciplina monstratur ;
Tela Kal KYEAnLAS CVVAVAOTPOMYC
cic Sidacxartas avaBatvery Ba-
Oy.dv. [lotog otpatyyog otextov nam
xaOnyetobar Sdvatar, Edv UN UxE- dum dux exercitus nonnisi la-
zvenOy Tapa Ta&vTOV, Ete Sovatat bore et sollicitudine expertus
woxOw xat povttdr Tov xataT- eligitur, quales animarum du-
otevbevta adTE) Andy oaTety;
/ > ~ \
ces esse possunt, qui episco-
/

1255 patus culmen immatura cupiunt

festinatione conscendere?
Huius saltem rei comparatione
Ei 58 todt0, récm wHrArov Yuxac Eu- considerent et aggredi repente
tuctevOjoetar nal cig TO Bog TH¢ Ext- inexpertos labores abstineant,
onoTtiag &vénBor 6 THY ExxAnoraoti- 1260

4228 Tovog Xapac: KOOLOV

4229 Towoc Xapae: av7AVE nal ob nate TOYS TAS” HUlY xavdvac
> bpd 6 E \ 2 A \ > e ~ 4

ee
1242 Téuog Xapae: 0d THs Goplag Thy &yvotav oTrovdatwor
1259 Tépnog Xapic: eTLGKOTEAS
 CV RV
xny wabyow &yvody xal otpatetas
HAL TOALTLKOLG GULLPEOOULEVOS TOk-
yuacw ed0éue cic 7d Bos TH¢ exxAy-
owmaTtinys TaEEWS THC KopVEAlLAS dva-
Spaettar; Kita éxet dvaBas xat wn-1265
dev Extata&uEvos THY ExxANoLKOTLXOY quippe qui non didicerint,
Decne, mods dAAovS SUvatat SudaEar; quod doceant.
Ar& todto H xavovixh teckic ovv- Unde canonica instituit cen-
EOTHOATO KAaL TAOHVEGEV, va LN ob- sura nequaquam ex layco ad
TOS O aUAOAS xal wy etda@c momat- 1270 sacerdotium repente transire
veoDan cig tronrévas edOd6 xat du-
Sacxdroue avaBatvy. Ave todto dé
xat 6 teos6nOeic ayrotatos Tapaaros
ATO Anixod cig KOYLEEWOavYHY EADY
EDooevBroe tivac, GAA Sud TOD TI- = 1275
STOTATOV ADTOD Seduov, TOUTEDTL
Sta THY ExravocNwow TOY KYL et nisi per eius fidelem con-
cixdvov, TOUTOV yaoLy d&ravtes ot cursum pro sanctarum imaginum
tTyvindde cig THY adTOD KEYLEOWoU- erectione in elus consecra-
voy 6ovoncavtes ouvevdoxnonmey 1280 tione assensum omnimodo tri-
Ve ~
KHAL YUELC WET
ae ate
AVTWYV.
¢
Ooze
NGoresy
XKAL STL buere nequivimus.
THS Tapo0vaNs SroVEcewc, Aéyouev
dh Dwrtiov tod ayrotatov aderApod
Huds nak ovarertoveyod, AX od yor]
TO oT&VLOV vouLoy yiveoDan OdE, 1285
dudt TaPASdEME OTOL EZEAaUYay,
XaVOVA TOUTO TrOLetaOan xal eic
TONS KAAOVS,
GAG TroeTCOV gotty, aSeApOl ayaTy- Porro et nos hac vos, fratres
Tol, TOY TAAMLOY VOUOY cuogtyyetv, 1290 karissimi, lege constringimus,
iva &rd TOD Tapdvtos cic THY xaO’ ut si deinceps apud cunctam
byte cytav tod Oeod ExxAnotav ecclesiam, quae in vobis est,

1264 Téuog Xapic: dvadedun

1265 Téuocg Xapic: dvaBatverv /
1277 Tépocg Xaokg: [dra]
1278 Téuocg Xapae: [of]
4284 Téuoc Xapic: ovAAeLTOupyoU 7ULay
256

CV RV
TOLG dwotors TOSTOLS LH TAPAat-
~ Vf
a paternis regulis per simi-
VOVTAL TOY TATEGY Ob xavOvEs ev
~ ~ >
lem praevaricationem numquam
TOUT, LNDE alovidroy cig THY
I \ > / a
spondeatis delinquere, id
uevarny a&2lav tude dvatpéy wou. est, ne neophitus repente ad
honorem ascendere

3. Further conditions for Photius’ acceptance

Ilapaxadobpev S& xat todtO Thy
Spetépav adekpotyta, tva THY €
¢€ f LOE Lae de \ 25

mapytav
,
tH¢ ettBovayaptac,
pe ,
Hv
a)
6 60Beoc
\
et si parroechiam Uulgaricae
die teecBetacs TOD uaxxetov [Tétoeou gentis, quae Deo auctore
TOD ATOGTOAOY “aL TOD xdTOv nal beati Petri apostoli inter-
u.0y8ov Tod meonynoapévov judy cic cessione atque decessorum
Xorotoyv
pe énéotoetev,
f ) drodaoynte nostrorum labore ad Christum
Outy. conversa est, subducta, quam
ibi fecistis, illicita ordi-
natione, reddideritis
Oé)opuer d& xai TOOTO, tva, exv
, \ Q ~ a age

7H tic Sedtwypevos 7} anoayltotns, et abiectos quosque fratres

did TOD buetéoov xdzov woyOhoav- ac discordantes vestro labo-
Teg Duetc peta TOD KYLMTRTOD TA- ris studio cum predicto Pho-
te.aeyou Dwttov, bmée od xal Tov
1d , € ¥ = \ \
tio, quem patriarcham in re-
TODov buddy dieyaodEate, wete Ta&v-
fA € ~ , \ /
gia urbe desideratis habere,
TOV DULY TAY edaEBOv Zoyav xal aliisque pis operibus of-
avTOvSG xepdHoyte, WS &v xal ev fensionem, quam coram Deo et
TOUT KUEUTTOL EVOTLOV TOD Deod sanctis canonibus contraxis-
evocQetyte. tis, in hac parte reconpen-
saveritis,
‘O 8é &yLamTatTOS nal DeoceBeoTa-
tog adEAP0s HUY Datw0¢ 6 matol- venerabulem fratrem Photium
doxns pa) arcakwban évodmuoy ths coram synodo misericordiam

1293 Touoc Xapic: maeaBatvesvtat

1295 Towos Xapaic: [eic]
1296 Téuoc Xapic: d&vatoéyover
1301 Téuoc Xapaicg: mpecBerdv
1311 Towoc Xapaic: poybjoor. bude
1315 Téwog Xaptig: goyav tva xat
 257

CV RV
ovvedov THY YGow Hal
YY YAOW xal THY
677) OZCOvONY
On, quaerendo et patriarchatus
Qos = x =
NUD, UKAAOV dé TA OTAKYYVA THC honore fungi volumus et nos-
TOY Pwopatwy éxxrnatas avaxnodzar 1325 trae communionis immo et be-
i Me 2 ~ lod

OG KAL NES YAOLTAG HITA) KDSEA- atorum apostolorum seu omnis

€ VS , ~ :

oimas nateBéucba, matordoxyy adTov

\ /
ecclesiae fore Domini mise-
amcodezauevon évvomrtatov xal ratione participem,
>

, ae
KEKXAHVOVIOWLEVOV, OUYKOLVGVOUVTEX

tov waxaolov [léteou tod amoortéAov. 1330

K
al TACK n ExxAnota TOV “Pwouatoy
‘ led € > f ~ € /

OTAKYYva TATOLKK EttedetEaTto cic

“OTOY,
Tapadelypaciy éraxorov0joucn TOV
/
hoc exemplo roborati maxime,
> / ~

Te GAA@Y TOONYYHCALEVOV NUOY, AS 15) quo egregius praedecessor

UAALGTA Se TOD LaxaoLWTaETOD ’lvvo- noster Innocentius sanctis-
xevtion xal Tedractov xat morAA@yv simus papa Photinum restau-
c f-
AYVLOY KOYLEOEGYV
>
Po U7C-
/
rare dignatus est dicens:
id A

Veniam nunc ad maximum quasi

1340 quoddam thema, Photinum;
et inter alia: Quia res ad
salutem rediit, veniae hunc
in tantum vobis annitentibus
post condempnationem more
13 45 apostolico subrogamus tantis-
que vestris assertionibus
vobisque tam bonis, tam karis
non dare consensum omnibus
duris rebus durius arbitramur.
50 Pro vestra erga approbatione,
fratres karissimi, et senten-
tia ac postulatione episcopum
Photinum habetote. Licitum est
ita constituere, ut depreca-
13 Do mini, et nostram in melius
conversam sententiam labore

1326 Towocg Xap: oreo ‘

1329 Téuog Xapac: GUVKOLVWVOY Te TOD
1335 Tonocg Xapac: quty
258

CV RV
vel testimonio vestro compotes:
voti suscipite.
Xeon yko, Sau cic xowny owrtyptayv
ouvteAet, Tavta TeCNbWs Toretv, 1360
xal yee TOAAGL TOY KOYLEPewY TOUC
olxstoug Dodvoug &dinec &moBardv-
Teg ual SrmyQévtec EF adtey TH
aToaoTtoALny dSiabécer tovs idtous
Dodvoug anéraBov, budy dé ayafGy 1365
dvtav xal én” eyaDots thy altynow
TOLOVLEVOY KAL ETL GULDEPOVTL XOL-
VOS THC OtxovpEevNjG, Tio ObTH
OXANOOS xat Mos edoecDetn, Iva
TPG THY DuETEpay attnat, adeAqot 1370
ayaryntot, amavbaderaon xal &mo-
Soxidoy THY xoLwyY TOY ExxANoL@y
cwtyotav; [dob toivuy Sarynxovon-
sv xal braxovouey TH Oetéo%
aELoost Emtxvoodvtes xal érrBeBar- 1375
odytes TOY TOLULEéva DUdY Dadtiov tov
KYLOTATOV TATOELAPYYY xal SUdwTODLEY
Thy Dustéoav evacBerav ev xarj
avaotoopy Stapetvan xat, iva wh
@ow gv duty oxtowata, dAM’ amode- 1380
Eduevor adrov alotws &mavtes ody
elAtxotvet mooVéoer ddtoTAxTH YVOUy,
xa ASdAw xaodta, xaBars xal Steon-
uatvate, TOY adTOV obvSecuov Kat
THY adtyHy dyanyy ev Xorotd tH} 1385
TAVTOV KOOLOH ovvabate xal rrydelc
Uyxert év butv otaoukCy.
‘O yao adtov wh drodeyduevoc odx%
eyst wépos wel” Huddy, donee 6
dexduevog adtov xal Huo dSéyetar. 1390

1367 Téuoc Xapae: xowv 22

1374 Tonos Xapic: braxobouey
1381 Téuog Xapaic: &mavtec abate
 259

CV RV

4. Final remarks

Sollicitos enim vos pro salute

Ast yao Huds, Ott yetoa Huetc libenter admitto; cui manum
dpéyouev, wel? Sudy dpgyeuv, tva porrigitis, vobiscum porrigo,
Kal Nusic, @tivt yelou doeyere, cui porrigo, mecum porrigite.
uel” budyv doéywuev. 1395 Haec enim ad Corinthios est
apostolica declarata benigni-
tas, ut
Obra yao TAnPOUTAL xal TO ev Evi in uno
TVEVULATL HAL ULE Kapdta do&aTerv spiritu
TO TKVTULOV Svoum TOD Tatebs xat 1400
tod viod xal Tod Kytov mvevuUaToc
“vOv wal wel nal cic TOS aldvac
tay alavey. Auny. . ~ ductam
. ac reductam sententiam boni
1405 semper indifferenter sequantur.

DATA MENSE AUGUSTO, INDIC-

TIONE DUODECIMA.
_ MISSA PER PETRUM PRESBYTE-
RUM.
 4. COMMONITORIUM 4

KOMMONITOPION TOIX AAEA®OI®E TIAYAQI KAI EYPENIOT OLAYTOXS 1410

KAI IIETPQI IIPEYBYTEPQI KAPAHNAAI HMON EN KONE TANTINOY-
IIOAE] AITEXTAAMENOIZ.

Keqgahiator a.
Met& tig tod Dz0d BorPztac xat t&v ze=- 1415.
oReL@y Tay. cyiwv amootéAwy év KavotavtivoundAet ciaco-
~ ~ Ag / > / > fs >

yousvov buddy, Sov mooatazer 6 Baotdedc, Exeioe weTa-

ttONTE nal med TOD Tov BactrAéa DeckaacOa, KAA tTuvt THC
aTOGTOALKAG ETLOTOAAS LY) DeAnonte SodVaL.
Tlapaotavtwy d& budy évamov tod Bastkgws txS EmatoOAxs 142)
THOKGYETE TOLOUTOLS PHUKoLY AITO TE0GDDeyySuevor:
Tlpooxuvet thy byuetépav éx Os0d Bacretav 6 avevwatixoc
uaoy matno 6 xve.oc “Iwavyns 6 axootodixocs admas TO
buétepov x Ozod xoatog tatc adtod xaB” ExxrortHy ixeotatc
Trapatubéwevos TH Kyte OG, tva 6 toradTyy Suty éxbuutay
0 t ~ c , Qe ~ ¢ 4 ax i c at > 6 /
1425.
¥ ip =e

Sovs dia TO reg yma TIS ExxAnoraotinys clonvns avtinata-

\ ~ ~~ > ~

Tenby Duly Thy yapwv adtod xal mapapvOnonta: Suze TH

la € bind ~ ~ ~

avToD xxTevodm@aze xxl TEAcLOTy ev KyaDoic 7d ODyua Sudv.

> bad y: \ , > > s \ Z € ~

Kegpadatoyv £B.
"Hav OzAjos. 6 Bastdebs md tod tao er- 1430

a) Mansr XVII, 468-472 = MGH, Ep. VII 188-190

1417 Topog Xapkc: urtatevO7te
1411 Toyo Xapic: maoéZete
1413 Téuog Xaoae: buddy
1416 Touog Xapéic: d&vtixxtaméupor
1417 Téu0g Xapsig: rxpxuvOjoorto
1418 Téuosg Xapac: tererdoor
1420 Téuoc Xapkc: Vernon
1421 Téuwoc Xapiic: dvayvdvar Sudy
1423 Towocg Xapéic: xal édv - Keg. y'
1424 Téuoco Xapic: d&moxoOetts
1426 Téuoc Xapiic: ovyxoototox
1427 Téuoc Xapks: &romdnpotoa Kepkrnov y’ 38’ = 8’.
 264

OTOAKG AVAYVAVTAL TH TYG aTOXELaEMS Huadv avawabety

\ > ~ \ ~ ~ ~

bee, ay D
XEPAAKLA, TOLOUTOLG PHUAGLY adTE= TOOGEITATE:
Hi xedrever q Baorreta buddy, idétw tao ExrotOAds, Kat
2a I € i. € ~ QZ

cav cimy:
DN
Li meouéyovow ai émtotodai; anoxolOyte adt6):
mae . LE / Br ho / > £ / a ~_

Ilpocxvvyjcers ted Thy buctépay edosBerav xal Adyous THs

, x \ € ~
1435
EXKANOLAOTLXIG ELoyVyS ovYRooTOUVTAS TOY GbYdecuOY xat
> ~ > ~

TAVTL TOOTH RAADS aTOTANOODVTAC.

\ ~ and 5

Kepahatoy y’.
TY d& éEtépa Huéou meocnyopevovtes Dwtiw
T@ KYLWTATH ETLSoTE Kal Thy ExratorAyy domwaldusevot adtor 1440
TMOEMOVTMS ToLovTOLS AyUaGL: LLoooxvvet oe 6 xVELOS AUOY
“Todvwig 6 &rootoatnds manag nat Oédet yew oc &deAQov
“Kal GvAAELTOVEYOY.

Kegpadatoy &.
Kabdic axéotetrev 6 Baorredc, tva due tH 1445
clonyyny tH
Ae AAD
exxAnotas,
amodeloucla
> ra
tov\ ayLMTaTOY
€ ,
TATELaE-
,

yny Datiov aderpov xal cvAdertoveyov NUdY, Elonxovoauey

/ > \ \ \ € ~ > '

aio Senocus budv nal xercvouev, a Evdmuov buy E10H

sic> THY\ OtvodoY
7.
xal NaSaodéEntat
laa
abtor
SiN
mdoa
ms
7e éxxAnotia
2 ,

KATH Thy Srata&y TOV youswatov Huddy. 1450

2a
modeénobe adrov xal buetc cvyxotvwvoy xal ovdAAeLTOvVEYOV
ae b) A Ue ws \ \ \

nal tva edyaorotiav nal Ereog tYH¢ Exxdrnotas THY “Poypatov

Nv > / A oh ~ > , ~ 5 /

TOOGHENY).

Kegpasatoy e.
’Avaotdytes cinate adté: Keleder 6 xderoc 1455
Nudy 6 ayLatatos TaTaG, Iva TaVTES of év duapdeots ovtes
cémoug brepdoLot, ette émloxoror cite mpeoPutepor cite
> » /

drow tees ual odx HOEAnoay Ews TOD TAPOVTOS KXOLVWVTGAL

> Z ida - / ~~
7 \ \ >

uc” dudy, dud Tod w.6yx80v buay EevolGor TH ExxAnoty Tov

5 ~ ~ ¢ ~ ~ 2 , ~

Deod xat yévovtat év uel” budy. Epyougvey dé avtav

~ ~ / A > ~
1460
amodééetat adbtods Oo TatTHe téxva xat vovbetHoEr aUTOvC
> \

a ~ ~ ~ 2 ,
morrdcurc, tva dia thy clonvyy tH¢ TOD Deod Exxrnotac

4442 Téuoso Xapi¢: [xat]

1446 Téuoc Xaptic: témots ovtec
262

SWovonowo! wETX TOD amoaTOALKOD xal xPATHGWSL "ET HDTOD

Sy OgAnua, aroSeyéuevor Dartiov tov ayLotaTOv TATELAOYHY
xal yivdevot adTOD cuvyxotvovol. Ot dé Eoyéuevot, Coot 1465.
usv meocyetpotovyOjcay, tva a&roAdBwot tos Dodvouc
avtay, of d& Zayatas yerpotovnbevtes tva Eywow Ex TOY
avTaY eteLoxdTOv SLaTeOPASG xal oxEeTAoUATA KOXODVTA.

Kegpadadaatov oat.
Kabeabévtmy Suady ent t7¢ cvvédou wete 1470
’ \

TOU TeOPOYMEvTOSG KYLwWTATOV TATELAEYOU XAL THY TIC

AVATOAYS TOTOTNONTOY KUM TOLG AOLTOLS KOYLETLOXOTTOLS
HAL UNTOTOALTALG xAL THOL TOS teocdor TG Kwvotavtt-
VOUTOALT@Y ExxAnalas TE@TOV avayvMaIhtwMcay al EmoTtoAal
aL TPOS TOV BacLAEX ATOOTAAELOML Kal CowWTYHOHTW N OvV-
¢ \ \ la > ~ Le 6 / Se ¢c t {
i ~lon

od0oc, et dmodéyetar adtag xal dav puddttwor Tao ULKETD-

plas, &¢ mepltéyer A EmtrotoAH. Arroxeiwayéevay adtev
etrate: “O xdolog umy 6 adyiwbtatog mamas Nac@y THY
éxxhnor@y poortida mowovpmevos nat THs Suetéouc owmTnotac
XAaL EVWGEWS “aL cionyynsg TeoUvIOdUEVoS améoTELrey Aus
Are. , \ > Ul ' > / 3 ~
1480 a)

tovs SovAous adtOd, tva tobc Siecxopricuévous cuvaya-

youev xal tobs Sveotatas clonvedowuey xal Th créer THC
exxdnatas yetpa dpsEwuev, tobe xatessaypévouc avooPdowuey,
> ~

iva mavtes év évi otdwate OoEdlwmer Tov natéoa oi vi@ xal

aylo
ae i
mvedtuate.
/
1485 es

"Hott totto xaddv 7 obyt; “H &yta obvodoc cizev:

Z@
OX TPOS ELONVYY Kal OudvoLay TIS ExxAnotac clot,
\ > a AS: 4 ~ > , > ,

Kal KAAK xal drodexta Hyobucba.

Kegaiatoyr C. s

Tove dé dtapévovtac év tH abtéiv ad0adeta

\ ~ ~

L490:
”

HHL THOAYH nal cig THY EvoTHTA THIS ExxAnotas xal Tv

\ ~ A ~ ~

aehpay uh Wrovrac ovverOetv uyds tov obvSecuov THe

> ~~ \ lA tnd ~

ayarns duapuancat, meta B’ xal y’ vovdeciay Sudy te nat

> / 5 v\ UA \ la \ , / € ~ ‘

TIS HYLag cvvedov ToLhaate adtods dxoLwwvatove xal mav-

~ c / t

1472 Touog Xapic: kun tév howrdv doyremoxérey xh UNTIOTOATOV xxl TaVTWY TOY»
tepgarv
1479 Touoc Xapéic: xalt thy bustéoxv cwryotav xal eves xt slonvny meounBodusvos
1490 Téuoc Xapkc: [88]
 263
“TOS TAHYUATOS EXXAHSLAOTLKOD A@OEloute, Ews dv EvobGar
\ / > ~ ¢ * ~

1495
THa OlXsi@ TaToLAoYN xal TH. xat’ adtov exxdyola.

Kegpahator x.
*EEaxorovQodvtec totic xavéct TO aylov
TAatEowy AEyousy, tva peta THY anoBlwow Durttov tod ayrw-
: / if cc \ \ > la 5 a Ca J

TATOV TATELAPYOV UNdele AO xoGULXOD KELdUATOS Elo TOV

/ ~

1500
Opdvoy Kovotavtivourmdrcag &vér0y, xabds xak ab exratoral
HOY paotveodet.

Keqgadiatoy &.
Oéiouer Evoomuoy THiS ovvddov, iva tov
c4 > / ~ / a \

teeoppyYévta Datiov tov &yratatov matoLdoyny Tapaxarg-

cag / Pi x € / ig Li

1505
OnTe UNTE @uogdotoyv cic Bovayaptav &noortethan unre
AErpotovyjoa. ev tH adtH Exapytay sav yao tobto norjon,
EAEYEaL HUTOV Eyouev KAVOVLXOIC.

Kegpdadatory.
Oéiopev évdmuov tic Evdnuotons ovvddov 1510
dvaxnovyO7vat, tva n odvedosg H yeyovuta xata Tod
TmeopenYEvtog TateLdpvyou Dwrttov év Tot xatpots Tod
"Aderavod Tod ayLwtatov mama év TH “Pon xal gv Kovotav-
TLVOUTOAEL AO TOD MaeEdrtOs h eGwatpaxtouevyn xal &xvEOS lord x \ >

Kal KBEBarog xat un ovvaplOu7tar abty we’ EtéoacG Kyla cvvddov.

\ > / wy \ bind ee Diese / € 1a ‘>
1515

ayia ovvodosg amexolOy: Huctc du” Zoywv anexyov-

ta)
ies
© / et 3 , zee ~ > a !

Eauev xat ameBarducla xal dvaOeuationuey THY THO”

x

Suey Acyougvyy obvodoy, Evwlévtes Dotin TO ayLoTaTH

Nudyv materaeyxn’ xat Tove wh &ToBarAousvous TH XAT”
abtod ypapévta 7) AnAnOévta ev adtH TH OnPeton mae’ 1520
Sudyv ovved@, TO dvabEuatt magaméurroucy.
"HAtas unteororirns Maptupomdremc, nat “HAtas *lepo-
COWWLwY TOTOTHTNTNS, clmov: xal TAH yao &V GbvOdOG
éyely 7 uvetwv cyrouatoy exxAnatav TAnO@oaoa,; TiC

4498 Téuoo Xapac: e2axodovBotvrec’.... matéepwyv = xe. C

“A ~ Oa ~ ~ tL Ff ,

1506 Téuoc Xapdig: @popopov

» I

41507 Téwoo Xapic: yerpotovnoy

 dvoudcete abvodov thy Laoaxnvdy d&moxerorastous x217%s
nat vounobeTas xxBioncny; molars cvvddorg xorOunbzty
q TavtTOY TOY KYtwv cuvddey évavtla TOAUHCAOE ;
N Tove &vevObvoug xal ywpls TIS olac Shmote eketa-
GEMS KRATASIXAGAOA, Y TaVTAS Deowods ExxANoLAaTLKOUG
nal moAutinods avyyéaon, xual xataotpepaca; dix tadra 1530
yao ob THC dvaTOATS KYLMTaTOL Dodvor &roxnovxtOUS
TKS TOKEELS ADTIC xal aMOBANTOUS ExoLnouavto, xaL TO
avalepat. mapenéupavto.

Kegpadiactov ua.
Bhdérete, tva xata TO Evtarwa Hudv obtac
mepimathnoynte xal wnte Spots ovvarcayOAte ute Sua xoAa-
xstav 7H pdBov éxxAtvnte SeEra H Koprotepd, AAAX Baordrx7,
656 mopevOynte, a> TOV TéTOV xal THY EZovotay, Fy Suty
dud thy cionyyny Tig Exxdrnotas SeSaxamev, Eyovtec, tva
dic TOD Suctépov xdzov xal &Etov budv woyov thy yaouv
Hudv xat tod &rootoAtxod Yodvov Exnte xal huctéonc
xowovias yéevnobe cuvxAnooveuor.

1527 Téuwoo Xapkc: tay aytwv xual macdy tav ovvdSuy

1529 Téwos Xapic: [fH ravtag... ovyyénox xxt]
1531 Téno0c Xap&e: [&yretxro1]
1532 Téwoo Xapic: [xdtho xat]
1537 Téwoc Xapic: d&protepk 7 Sekrd
1538 Touoo Xapke: judy, Ay
1542 Téuocg Xaptic: xAnoovduor
 5. LETTER OF POPE JOHN VIII TO THE IGNATIANS 2

EXIMIIS VIRIS IOHANNI LEONI ET PAULO PATPICIIS

ATQUE STILIANO IOHANNI ET METROFANI REVERENTISSIMIS
METROPOLITIS ET CETERIS SACERDOTIBUS SEU CUIUSCUMQUE 1545
ORDINIS CLERICIS SEU LAICIS

Omnium ecclesiarum Dei secundum apostolum sollicitu-

dinem habentes et pastoris gregis Dominici nobis in
ipso apostolorum principe curam commissam gerentes, 1550
Domino dicente: ‘Si diligis me, Simon Petre, pasce
oves meas’, condolemus vobis, quoniam multis iam laben-
tibus annis usque ad praesens in discordiae divisione
et in scandalorum perturbatione vos videmus promtos
manere nec per caritatis custodiam ad unitatem eccle- 1555
siae velle reverti. Quam videlicet unitatem qui non
tenet, Dei legem non tenet, Patris et Fili fidem non
tenet, vitam non tenet nec salutem. Hoc denique uni-
tatis sacramentum, hoc concordiae vinculum insepara-
biliter coherens ostenditur, quando in evangelio tuni- 1560
ca domini nostri Jesu Christi non dividitur omnino nec
scinditur, sed sortientibus de veste Christi, quis po-
tius Christum indueret, integra vestis accipitur et
incorrupta atque indivisa tunica possidetur; possi-
dere enim non potest indumentum Christi, qui scindit 1565
et, dividit ecclesiam Christi. Quis ergo sic scelera-
tus et perfidus, quis sic discordiae furore vesanus,
qui aut credat scindi posse aut audeat scindere uni-
tatem Dei, vestem Domini, ecclesiam Christi? Monet
ipse in evangelio suo dicens: “Et erit unus grex et 1570
unus pastor’; apostolus autem Paulus hance eandem nobis
insinuans unitatem hortatur dicens: ‘Obsecro vos per
nomen domini nostri Jesu Christi, ut id ipsum dicatis
omnes et non sint in vobis scismata, sitis autem per-
4

a) MGH Ep. VII 186-187.

266

fecti in eodem sensu et in eadem sententia’, et ite- 151d

rum dicit: ‘Sustinentes invicem in dilectione, satis
agentes servare unitatem spiritus in coniunctione pacis’,
quoniam nec habere pacem cum Deo poterit, qui cum
fratribus pacem per zeli discordiam non habuerit.
Quam igitur sibi pacem promittunt inimici fratrum? 1580
Quae sacrificia celebrare se credunt sacerdotes,
caritatis Dei qui non sunt veste induti? Pacem nobis
Christus dedit: ‘Pacem, inquit, meam do vobis, pacem
relinquo vobis’; concordes, atque unanimes esse prae-
cepit, dilectionis et caritatis faedera incorrupta atque
inviolata mandavit. Et idea vestram salutem cupien-
tes monemus et apostolica benignitate iwbemus vos om-
nes sanctae ecclesiae unire vestroque patriarchae, Pho-
tio videlicet, quem pro ecclesiae Dei pace et unitate
recepimus, adhaerere communicareque studete. 1590
Nec aliquis vestrum hance habeat in redeundo excusa-
tionem pro scripturis de hac causa compositis, quia
divina potestate, quam accepit ecclesia Christi, cuncta
solvuntur vincula, quando per pastoralem aucto-
ritatem quae fuerant ligata solvuntur; quoniam, 1595
sicut dicit sanctus Papa Gelasius, nullum est vincu-
lum insolubile, nisi circa eos, qui in errore
persistunt.
Nam si haec nostra apostolica monita tantis supra-
dictis testimonuis divinis firmata audire contempse- 1600
ritis in vestra pertinacia manere volentes, scitote,
quia missis nostris precepimus tamdiu vos omni
ecclesiastica Ccommunione privare, quamdiu ad unitatem
corporis Christi et ad vestrum contempseritis redire
Pontificem. 1605
DATA MENSE AUGUSTO, INDICTIONE XII, DIE XVI MISSA
PER PETRUM PRESBYTERUM.
 6. THE “‘HOROS’ OF 879-8804

& , e x * %
Tod Kuptov xat Lwripos judy “Incod Xprotod thy cexthy xal
Detav Sidacxartav tots TIH¢ Stavotac xdAroLg a&dtoTAxTD 1610
Le ‘ ~ ~

Youn “nal mloveme teHeucdtwuevyny xaOxnedtyTL, xal TH

, \ ~

HUTOD aytwv waOytTHy xal d&tooTOAWY Ta Leoas SraTHEeLS xal

> ~ ~

TOUS XRAVOWLKOVSG TUTOUG amMAaVEGTaTH xoloeL avveLLoodvTés Te

xal ovvdtac@lovtec, vat Sh xal TOV &ylwv xal oixovpmevixdy
\ ~ ~

ETTA SVVOSWY, GG TOD AVTOD nal Evdc ‘Aytov Ivedpatos tats

¢ \ / ¢€ ~ > ~ a 3 \ Cx 14 Uy ~
1615
érumvotats MOuvoyévoy te xal évepyoupévanv, TO xHovypa xal
> t > / Ne -3 / \ t \

TOUS xAVOVLRKOLG Deauods amaQuTEwTOUG TE XAL AXATNHACVTOVG,

StALKPLVEGTATY
> I
TE XAL i KxAOVYATA
5 ,
5OEN
re
TUL@vTES
~
xaL \ cuvdta-
AKTTOVTES, aToBarrducba
puaAattovtes, & MrAbpe0a wévwév obc
ods eEexxAnatacav,
EZexxAnotacav, otépyou
atépyouey
de
& xal anodoyx7s aElouc Eyouey od<¢ ota dy d,oddZouc 7H xat
si \ hpe 8 * Se aey. ole oy a Ke oy € ova o s)
1620
TIS edocBelacg xxOnynta> TLLHY xal céBac Bcrov dpetAouévouc
anéonvav. OStw rept TOUTWY MEOVODYTES Te KAL RNOUTTOVTEG,
tov dvwbev éx Tatépwv xal weyers NUGY xateAynAvOdta TIC
AXPALPVEGTKTNG TOY YELoTLAVGY mlaTews Sopov xal Sravota
xa YAMOoN otépyouey Te xal TAGL SLtaTOvVEtLW TH PHY TEeL-
ayyéhroucy, ovdéy apaioodrtec, ovdEv Moo0TIOErtTES, OvdEY
~ 2Q% Q\

auseiBovtes,
>
ovdev xuBdndedortec.
;
“H pev yao\ apauteeous
> ahr

xal Nn TedcVeotc, UNdewLAS UO THY TOD TOVNEOD TexVaoUATWY

~ ~ ~ ~ ,

AVAXLVOLLEVIG AtpEceWS, RATHYVMGLY clonyEL TOY AxaTO-

~ 3

yaotov xal bBow tv natéowy avarondyyntoyv. To dé x.8d7-« ~ NY Ls

1630
hows &uetBerv onuaow Goo0ug TatEoWY TOAY TOD TEOTEPOU « ~ i

a) Mansi XV11 520

1609 Téuoc Xapec: teBeucdrmpévor
1613 Téuog Xapkc: svveZocrotvtec
1618 Téduog Xaodic: tiudvtes te nat
1619 Téuog Xapicg: svvdtapurantovtes
1622 Toyo Xaptic: avaxnodttovtes
1625 Ténocg Xapic: Starpuota, [tH] 4
1628 Téu0g Xapicg: med0eotc
1631 Téuoc Xapéic: tovzov
268

yaherrotepov. Ard tov 2& dpyiic tg Ttotews Spov 7600

~ ~ a /

Bele xat Sravotacg evOdTHT H Kyla nat OlxovMEVLXT, AUTH

e ec / \ > Z ‘ cA =
/ \ / > /

Lbvodoc évatecovtouevy te nat OerdQovon, xual TO THC

\ A ~

catnolas otepéoua ev ate Oewedobodr te xal dveysipovos,

~ ~ A /
1635
obtw povery nal xypbooew raat éxBo%. Miotevw sic eva
>

Oedv, natéoa, navtoxodtoea, xai éyebis wézxou TéAovs.

~ /

Obrm gpovoducv, év tabtTy TH Ouoroyia. TIS Mlotew<s

EBontlobyuev, dy” adtyc nicav atocow Ooavouevyy te xa 1640
natarvonevyny 6 THs dAnPelac Adyo> anéderZe- Tove obTH
, e 4 > 4 t > / ea \ LcA

peovorvTas adeA@OLS Kat TATE nxal GUVAANEOVE TIS &VO

ToALtoyeaoias émuyeapoucOa. Kit 86 tic Exéoav ExOeou,
Taek TOUT 5} TO tepbv UiwBorov, To &veabev Ex THY waxa-
ociwy nal tepdy matépwv Hudv peyors Hudy diaportjoay, 1645
zoAunosiey dvavoabacOat xual boo0v miatems GvouacuL, OVA CK
To dElowa tH¢ TOV Deorectwy Exetvwy avdeay Guohoytac, ral
\ > is - ~ , > 7 > nS ~ € , \

Taig Stag ehpectoroytass ToUTO TeoLd&a, xoLVOY TE

uaOnuc toto moobetvat miototc, 7 nal tots €& alipgcewe
Tivos érLatespovet, xal Ejuacr voborg 7 me0cOHxaxg 7, 1650
apaLogceot Thy doyardtyTA TOV tsp0v TobTOV xal oeBacutov
dpov xataxtBdnrcdoaur a&toVoacvvOctn, xata THY Hy nat
g Led > / A \ ” \

TPO Hud exowvyPetoav UFjgov dnb THY Kylwv xal olxouMEVIZY

id ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Lovvddov, ct wey thy tepouevenv ely tic, TavTeAct xaBarpgoer

zTodtov xxOuToBarrouey, ct dé TAY AaixOy, TO avalEuate
TAPATEUTOUEY.

1632 Tépog Xapaic: de

1640 Téuog Xapdcg: Donvouévery
1643 Touog Xap&e: moditetac
1649 Téuog Xapic: mpocbeivan
 7. THE CANONS OF THE PHOTIAN SYNOD a

Kavoayv a

OLGEV 1] KYLA XAL OLKOVUEVLXT] GUVOdSOS, MoTE, El TIVEC

“<@) € £ ae \ > oN in A v

sav 2& *Iradtas HANELXOY, 7). Anin@y, } emroxdTwv, év tH

"Acta, i Edparn, % AtBvy dtatetBovtec, bxd Seousy, } 1660
naatesow, A dva0suationév, tape TOD a&yrwtétov Tana
"lwdvov Eyévovto, tva @otv of Torodton xal maer Deottov
TOD ayiwtatov Ilatorcoyou Kwvotavtivourdreas ev TG adTO
THIS eTutTintas 60m, Toutéotiv, 7) xaOnonuévor, 7 a&vaQounte-
ouévot, 7} apworopévor. Ob wévtor Datioc, 6 KyuMTKTOS 1665
hudy materaeync, xAnetxods, ® Aatxods, 4 Tod coyrepatixod
THYUATOS, XAL tepatixod ev oladHmoTE TapOLKta, UTO
apoptonoy, 7) xaDatocor, 7 avabeuaticpoyv morfjoet, tva
Zyn adtovds xal 6 ayra@tatos mamas Iwavys, xal n nat’
avTov Kyte TOD Ocod Poyatoy ExxAnata, év TH adT THC 1670
émitiutas xetuatt, under THY WEOCdrTMY MoEGBELWY TH
aytotatw Bodrvm tH¢ Popwaiwy éxxdnoiac, unde TH tad tyCS
mo00éd0W TO Givohoy XALWOTOMOLMEVEY, NOE VOY, LITE ELC
TO [LETETELTO.

Kavay pi : 1675
Ei xat wéyoer tod viv Evior THY aeyLepewy El¢ TO THY
ULOVaYEY KATLOVTES GYHUK, etl TH TH apyreowobvys EBraCovto
Stauéverw her, xal todto mexttTovtec, TAPEWPGYTO" GAA’ OdY
n ayia xal olxovuewixy abty obvodoc, xat todto pubuitovcn
TO TapdoaULK, Xal TPdG TOUS exxAYoLactLxEdS Deouovg THY 1680
&raxtoy talbtyny éravayovuoay teaeuv, dotcev’ tva, et ttc
émtoxomos, 7 et t1g KAAOSG TOD KoyLepaTixOD aZLauKTOG,
meds TOV wovadixdy OeAcor xaTeADeiv Btov, xal tov THC
ustavolac Tomov dvaTrAnpGaut, UNxETL TOUTOV THC KPYLEpaTLRT}C

a) Mansi XVII 497Dff f

1659 Téuoc Xapic: xab Aanixdy
1680 Téu0c Xaptic: tio exxAnoraotix7jc LATHOTEGEODS Wana
270

dvtimoreioOan délac. At yao THv wovayGy ovvOjxar brotay7¢ 1685

Adyov exéyovor xal uaOytelas, ar’ ody! Sidxoxadlac, 7
moosdplac’ obSé mowmévery HAAOUS, HAAG ToratveoBa
érayyéanrovtan. Ard, xa0’ & mpostontat, BeortQouev, wyxéte -

civd toy ev dpyrepatixd xatardym xal moruévoy ebetaCouevory,

elo thy toy ToLmevouevav xal weTavoobyTaY YOeaY ExuTOY 1690
nataBubater. Et 8é t1¢ todtTo ToAUHoere MeaEa, peta THY
Exoavaow xal dicyvooi THg vOv Extequvyuevns YAov, HITOC
éavtoy tod dpyrepatixod a&nootepyjaus Babuod, obxétt me0¢ TO
modtepoy, Sze dv adt&y tTHy Epywv NOEtySEV, ahiousw
ETAVAOTPEVEL.

Kavov y' 1695

Ei tig tay Anixdy adbevtyouc, xal xatTaPPOVNGAS LEV THY
Oetwv xat Bacrrtxdy mecotayrdtov, xatayehdous J xal TOY
OLKTay THs ExxAnolas Deoudy te xal vouwV, TOAUHOELEY
érioxomoy Tiva TOPaL, } PLAaKtioar, } ywets altiac, 7H xal
OUULTAAGaLEVOS aitiav, 6 ToLOUTOS avaDeua EoTH. 1700

1686 Téuoso Xapie: Eyovot AdYov zal weortetac

1687 Téuoc Xapéic: Trotudvety
1688 Téuosg Xap&c: wade
1694 Téuog Xapic: Erravactpeot
1698 Téuog Xaptkc: éxxdyatas pprxtday [te]
 WER ICAL ET Sy

Eig tac nuéoas mas eivar Ovvator va éEetdonmev diapdr0vg dvoxd-

hove botoginag Oéoers ps wsyadvtéoay aytimsiusvindtynta “at eidinol-
vevay maoa ei¢ to nagedOdv. Mia toadtyn aevintwsis tro 4) éxoxi)
xal TO modownoyv to6 Patiov. Abtéc 6 wsyas Hateudoyns tig Kwv-
atayvtwovmedewms—tov dmotorv GAhot wév oéBovta wo dytov, GAAou O& Ba-
oéwg xataxgivovr—éyet xataoth Oéua véag nal avtimeuertats totogl-
xHS Eoedvns, 7 Onoia Mdnynoer eic moAAac véag dvaxaldpeis xal xol-
cec. Ta cvuneodouata avta eivat onovoaia, dye udvoy Oud THY Oixalay
iatogixny éxtiunow tod neoodxov abtot, Ghia xal did tas ovvensias
tov éni tho Geohoylac xai idvatéows éxi tho Oeohoylas tig Xovotvave-
xHS EvOOEW.
Abtai ai oxépercs darjoEay 6 Adyos did va yoapH abth 7) wchéty MEL
tho Pwrteiov Lvvddov tod $79 - 880. Aid diapdoove Adyovsg abt 7
Lbvodos eyer Evdrapégoov Ota pilav méeoattéow Oeoloyrxyy éoevvay: “H
Lvbvodos éxtimatai nodvd ano thy ’Oobddokov ’ Exxdynoiay. *Hto 4 te-
Aevtaia yerixr, Lbvodos tig advawoétov °Hxxuhynoiac. “O [lamas °’lwar-
vnc 0 8o¢ &déxOn tac anopdaces tHG Luvddov abthce nal obtws Emeopod-
yloé THY anoxatactabsicay eionvyny metakd tic ?Exudyciacs ths Pod-
wns nat tho Exxdnoiag tho Kwvotartiwovndléwc, Gy xai gic av-
thy tH Sdvodov avexnovyOyn duvoos L'dvodos tod S69, tHy dsoiav 1
Powpaoxabohixy ’Exxiynota aveyvdouce Boaddteoor &x véov oo 8nv Oi-
xovuevixyy L'dvodov.
Mé Bdow ta axotehéouata tio vewtéoas iotooinns Eoevvng mEol
Dortiov dvvducla va nooceyyicowmey ta ovvayh Oeohopixa wal é&x-
xAnovohopina CytHmata, 6mmc m.y. tO EEfjc: Ld> éaxépOyn 7, Owrieoc
Sdvodoc; *Miatéows 6€, prjjmwc 4 dvodoc abt udc anoxahiaty ay-
tiAnwpiy twa mEeol THG Oécems muds Xvvddov évtdg tig °Exxdnoiac; Ei-
var pia and tag moAAac Deoloyixds gowtijoerg ai 6xota Ht0 Svvator
va yivovy. Eivat 6uws pia onovdaia godtyotc. ’Eyyiler td Babdteoor
odBAnua eig tov Suddoyor wetak&d tic “Oobo0ddEov xai tig Popmaixts
Kabohmuic “Exxhnoiac: Eiva 4 Padmy t6 xeitiovy tig évdtHTOS THC
’Exxdynoiac 7 eivar 1%) Oo0o0d0Eia aiotews 16 xottjovov; Kai vi 0éhet
DEN \ Y &
QUTO VA ElLTY),
272

“Tows byt pdvov 6 didhoyos metakd Kabohixiopod xai ’Oobodokiac

Oa Hddvato va GytAjay véa HONTEA a0 THY WeELETHY ABTHS THS Svvddov.
"Oniow tc ebpioxeta 1) Babvtéoa éodtyoic: Ti eivae 7 ° Exxhnoia;
Mia beohoyinh toevva ext tis Parieiov Lvvddov Oa xt0 Aowov Ovvatoy
va dvadoamation peydhov odhov sig TAS OixovpEerixacs azédELS metakd
-Avatolic wal Atvcewc, xai yernds cig tHY yorotiavixny °Exxdnoiay.
‘H wé0o0d0¢ dud THY MOAyWatoRoinoW Tob God avrod, dmTOsEV 1)
dvddvotc tov byyodpor ths Pwtietov Lvvddov. *Agzinds émoene va
doyoknbauev we db0 Oéuata, ta dx01a xahiotoby adtyy Tiy avdhvow
égintiy. Tadta anotehody to mo@tov wéoos tHS Magovans pmehétys:
a) Td istooxdr bxdpabooy xal B) % adbertixdtys THY éyyodpoy.
Mia xadr &xbeorg 10d iotogix0d boPdboov 0a xabiota ixavorvs TOvS
pny eidixods va Oéoovr THY dvddvow sis TO xatdddndov iotogixdy TH Mhai-
owor. Ag’ éréoov, dy xai noAdol iome eivar doxetd aAnoopoenpérot zegl
ths meguddov abtic, Gums % dvavewpéryn ictogixi) éocvva megi Datiov
yer mapovoidoet téoa otolzela, Mote wla REQryoayy THY amoteheopd-
tov aitay eewoiOy dvayzaia dua va dtaddon dpiotapévas mageEnyy-
oes, xal did va emipéon msyadvtéoay eihixoiveray cig TA amoTEsécuaTta
thc avalicews (Keg. 1).
‘H devtéoa aootindbectc Ova thy avahvow ito va an0dEryOy tt Ta
dedouéva éyyoava akiovy abtiy tiv agocoyziy (Key. Il). Atta ta
éyyoaga Ovvarta va ywotobodr eic dbo 6uddac: Tag émuatoAds, tac 0-
sotas 6 Hlanas Imayyns 6 Soc éotether sig tiv Kavotaytwotnodw
da va dvayyvwobody sic tH” L’vodor, xai ta Iloaxtixa tig Lvvddov.
Ai aamxai émtotohal épbacar eis ijudc dx0 OVO woopas xEmmévor.
Try woogiy ti» anavt@cay Evtos THY Extorjuwv éyyedgpar tod Ilana
°*Lwdvvov tod Sov (dnAad2) tod xeuévov THY Popaizdy avtiyeapayr tay
EmiotoA@y, tov qpvuiaybérvtay sig TA Mamix& aoxeia) xal 1) Om0la eC
THY magobcay wehétyy ovoudsetar (Roman Version», xal thy woogry
xEWMEVOL THY GvayvMo0Etcay xaTAa TAG ovvEedelacEls THIS Lvvddov, THY
oxotay ovoudlouey (Constantinopolitan Version». “H advbertixdtys
ths (Roman Version» ddvatat ebxdime va anoderyOH. “H «Constan-
tinopolitan Version» mxagovoiace idtartéoay dvoxodiay, didte eivat
TOAD Otayovetixi) a0 THY aoyixyy (Roman Version» xat éxoene ddau
abtai at dvagogai va &EnyyPodr. °AnedeiyOn dt év Kwvotarvtwovndher
TO adoyixov éx tHS Pouns xeimevoy meteBAiOn xata toLodtoy tedxor,
@ote ai namixat exiotodal va yivovy axodextai naga tov Bulavtway
ax00aTO?.
To xeoBijua tis abbevtixdtytoc tHG (Constantinopolitan Ver-
ston) oyetiletar we tO Crjtnma tho avlertindtytos THY colouévoy
 273

Loaxtinay tig Dwtision Lvvddov, di6te abty Eyer petaPiBac7 eic 1-

was évtoc tay Hoaxtixdy abtay. Mé ta énczerorijuata toy goevvay
tay TEhevtaiwy étay xal pé tiv Bor Pevay tho nAovotas él tod Oéua-
tos PiBhiobyxng xal ths noocwmnis wou eoebvns, éyer doxotytas ano-
deixOh dt Exouey Evdaudy pas obovactixds ta yrijova ITgaxtima tips
Lvvddov xai byt wetayevectéoay twa naganoinow.
His & toitoy xeyddaoy didetar uia odbytomos &Oeors THY ovve-
doidoewy tis Lvvddov, Oia va dtevxodvvOy 7 xatavdnois ths avaddse-
OS AQA THY dvayrMotayY, MEQLyoadyEetat Am0d0YH THS &x UéoOVG TOb
Hdxu *Imdvvov vob 80v xal oveynteita 4 thyn tHs cig THY iotogiar.

To dedtegoy méoos tHS mapovons medétns apieoodtal ic THY avd-

Avow thy xewévov. “H dinhh wooyy xewévov thY namindy emiotoA@y
didet wiay éEaioetoy edxaioiay 61a va ovyxoivmmer tac Pwmaixac xal
Bolartwvac andes. “H avddvoig hoinoy tév érrotoAdy abray (Keg.
IV) cvvictara eig tiv nagdddndov ovyxoitimy &oevvay tod mEoiexo-
Lévov THY OO Looyar Tob xewévov twv. ITodg dtevxddvvow tod dva-
yyHotov xai ai dvo uoogal xeévov tundvorvta &v magahAnhou®
eic TO Llagcotyua.
Ava tyy avddvow ray Lloaxtixay (Key. V) éxonoipomouj6n &Adn
uéVo00c. Mia neoryoagy thc atuoogaioacs tho Lvvddov adbtics ame-
xdhope v0 vootooniac: Oi dvtinodowmnot tic Pounc—nagortes sic THY
Lbvodov—EtHjoovy diagx@c avtiHetoyv otdow med tors ovvadéApovs THY,
thc Kwvotartiwovadiews. O8tam db0 otorxyeia mooxdautovy’ 1 onuacia
ths Lvvddov Oia tods ovupetacydrtas eic avtry xal 6 edhocg THY arTt-
noocwmnay tic Popunc. Adta xatéotycay TA xEVTOLKA ONMELA THS a-
vahvoews. Iota idéat eiyor tiv weyadutéoay onuaciay; Lloia 7t0 4
onuacia thgLvvddov adbtic dua tov Potvov, va tov adtoxedtoea, ova
tovs matéoas tio Lvvddov, dia todo aytimoocwmovg tHS Pwpns, xat
dua tors avtinooownove thy Ilatovaoyelwy tig’ Avatodijc; Mé tag é-
owtyoes abtas HoyodiOnuev cig TO NEM@TOY péo0S THS avadboEews.
Aedtteoor, Hoevvjoauey Babdtegoy thy Ogow THY artime0c@nv
tho Poépns eic thy Sbvodoy abtyy. [oia to i} oxéows tho Lvvoddov
1006 tods artinmopocdnovs THC Pdhuns, nH¢ éBhene thy >Exxdnotay thc
Pons 4 Xbvodoc, nota joay ai idéa thy Gvatohinay avtimoocwmoy
mel ToY avtimoocmineoy tH Péuns xal tho Pwpaixis “Exxdnoiag xai
téhoc, ota Ito 4 Gxéots TOD Datiov mod¢ tods avtinpocdmovs tTHS Pw-
uns xal tHv Pwpaixny ’Exxinotay; Abto eivar td dedtegoy méeos TIS
avahboews.
274

Ledhoyilouevor Ext tHv anotehecudtwv ths avahvaews, yrooilo—

perv Ove O&y ExitoémetTat va ywoiomperv Ev obyYTOMOY yeyovas 6mw¢ eivat
pia Sdvodoc, ano to iotoouxndv tHs mE0iBadAov. “Eniansg moémet va eime-
6a moocEextixol, Mote va uy avalnt@mev amavtyaes sic un yEevowévac
Eowtijoes. “Aw étéoov ai Lbvodor eivar uéoos tho dhoxAijoov totogiac
tio “Exxdnotac. Kivat otvypat tig abto - cvveiOijoews ava tovs ai@vas
tod «elvar ExxAnoia» atm xal ay dév Eupaivwrta eicg ta Lloaxtina tov
éxxdnovohoyixal Eowtyjoes. “H Xbvodog eivar « Exxinoia év Cwm.
‘O oxom0¢ tod toitov péoovs tTHS magovans medEeTNS 7TO Va TEOL-
yoaph avt 4 bmaesaxy otiyun ths Xvvddov tod 879 - S80, 6am¢ mo0€-
xvpev amo ta anoteléouata tio dvaltoews. Mia «beohoyia tis ’ Ex-
xhnoiac» exer avadyxny ano «close—ups) 6xws % avddvais tHS Lvvddov
tod 879 - 880, dx0 tov door 6was va wr) AnopornO7 6tt wia «close—up»
didet udvoy wiay mEeguxry Gropw tod svvddov. “Yao 6 avedpua adto, 7
«Reflection» (Key. VI) j0é,noe va taxtonoujon ei¢ play doyarixny
dudtagw to bhixoy tO ovyxevtowbéy ei tiv aGvddvow. Todto noocéye-
oey Molopévac Evdtayeoovoas anders: «Lloias idéag aeol *ExxAyoias
elyov oi matéges tho Lvvddov;)) eiva tO AQ@tov éowtHua.
Eig tiv Xdvvodov rod 879 - 880 4 ’Exxiyoia ito pia apaypati--
x0THC, GALA rEQutadtEQOY Piwbeioa naga diatun@beioa. “H °Exxhyn--
cia to} Xouotod eixer éxextabh eic Any tiv oixovusyny. *ALAd 6-
AHOXE wia pavega diayoga axdpewy eig tiv °Avatodiy xai eis tiv Ad-
ow. Big to xévtgov tig vooteoniac tay ’Avatolixay natéowy evolaxeto
MoMtiotas 4 Tomx ExxAnoia. “Hto xataparés sic adtods tu 1°? Ex-
xhnoia 7t0 (Kabohxy», adda abt 1) xabodixdtns xabictato xao0tca
sig TAS Tomas Tv ExxAnoias. “Ouws adti) 1) tomtx?) éxxAnoia dév ito
Emvoxomixy tomxn éxxdynoia, adda to Ilatevaoyeiov. Obras 1% idéa tH}S
Hevtagyias 70 1) xar’ sox xvo.agyoboa: “H *"Exxdnotia eivar 4 xol-
rovia tay névte weyddoy Iatovagyetwr, ta dxoia xahodyta va elvar
év: éy eis thy adtiy aiotw, év sig tiv adbthy Ebyaouotiay, xal bx6 THY
ddnyiay xai nooctaciay tHv Tatovapyav xal tod Abtoxodtogos.
‘H Avtixn avtidnyis ito dvayooetixy. ‘H *"Exxdnoia dév to t6-
cov 9 torn “Exxdnoia, odte 4} tom) °Exxdnota tho Pouns. >Hto
9 Llayxdopwos °’Exxdnoia 3x6 thy éxiphepw tho Popye.
Airy 7 dvapogetixy dnoyis eiyer dc anotéhecua xal ty dvagyo--
getixny arridnpw éxi thy oxyécewr metakd THY Llatevaoyeiwv: “H ° A-
vatodn edger tiv iodtnta xai dveEaotnotay ths tomxns (Ilatevae-
nxns) “Exxknoias o> noopari. BeBaiwc ior THY TOMTHY Déow évTtOS
THS xowwvias thy ’Exxdnovdy eic thy’ ExxAnotav tHS Popns, adv by’
door dév Hzelheito 4 dveEagtncia twv. ‘H Abouc &1e TEQLOGOTEOAY”
 275

Eupaow eig toy “Exxdnoiay tig Pauns xal eig tov éxtoxondy tne,
> tov advlertixoy noootdtyy xal nouéva. “O Patios iotato xdnwe
-€1¢ TO Médov, xAivwy Odc THY “Avatohimiy dxopw. “Yaeojonwe obe-
vaoas tyy aveEaotyoiay tod Ilate.agysiov Kwvotayvtwoundhews, ai-
Aa a0 TO GAdo wéoos eetiua mold thy dveédotytor Oéow tod Iona
évartt To Adtoxedtoeos, > magddEtyua med uiunow. Aév Hreiyeto 6-
ws va éxeuPaivyn abtn 4 masimy aveEagtynoia sig tag dno0béoeg THC
idtxng tov °Hxxdnoiac.
Ata tig éowtyjoews: (Ti eivar Lbvodoc;)) Oa jddbvarvto va me0BAn-
Jody capéotegoy at. idéat met THY GyécEwWY EeTAakd THY TomUx@y °Ex-
xhyovdy, motos 7 Moloy eivar TO xQLTYOLOY THC EvotHTOS THS “Hxxdnotas.
°HO® edboicxouer xa add dvayoodr anopewmy mstaéd *Avatodfjc xal
_Adoewe. ;
Eig tiv °Avatodry uwia Ltvodoc paivetar bte aneréle Oudhy moa-
yuatixotnta: “Hto 4 cvvartnotc,i)(ovr - Ehevorg)) tH >Exudnotas tod
_Xovotod. “Q¢ tovaden 4 Xdvodog eivary >Hxxdnoianagotoa. Kiva xgu-
THOLOY TOO Eavtod THC, Ey Boor péver ebmELOrc cic TOY Adyor TOO Oeod.
’Eytos abthc tH¢ ebmeeiac, diatdocel, amogacile: wal dév MEQLEVrEL
éexuntowow obte aso tov Ilanay, ovte ano addny éfovoiarv. To meoue-
youevov TS paivetar va eivar TO wdvoy xeitHoLoy tHS. “Ay EtéQOv, 1
_Ldvodog 7t0 cic abtoxpatoginoc Oeopos évtog tho advtoxeatooiac. “O
Abtroxodtwoe aoooxalei todbcs émioxdmovg ai todvco Iateideyas va é-
dovr. ‘O Abtoxodtwo éexdoniudlet xat dnoyoedger tac anopdcetc. Kivat
6 Abtoxpdtme éxeivoc, 6 omotocg notst THY Avvodoy olxovuerixyy. Pai-
vetar Ott 6 AdtOxOdTwWE Elvat TO XELTHOLOY TNS.
Eic thy Pohuny—tyy Atow—énexodtynoe pia GAAn Gmoyis meoi
Svvddov. ‘H Popaint >Exxinoia eedoenoe tov éavtoy tyg TO xQLTI-
ovov tHS éEvdtntos tHS “Exxdnotas, emi tH Bde tho dm0cxéoews tod
_Xovotod eig tov [létoor. “O Iéteog ovvexiler va Ci évt0¢g tho °Exxdn-
olac sig tO modcwnoy tod Ildna tio Péhuns. Mia Lvvodog Gewpeitat
éte elvar pia ovvedolacic, bx0v AauBdvorvta amopdcets ai onota éy-
xolvovtal 7} amoeointorta: duo tob Idxa.
Eic ti Livodov tod 879 - 880 ai dbo adtat dnowpers jOvrnOnoar
ya ovvendoyour. “H évdtng énetedyOn maga tag dvapogetixag tadtac
dytiAnpec. *AAAd abti 4 évdtns dév dujoxecev. Aid megurootégovs
Adyovs % ictogia diéonacer “Avatodny xai Atvow. “H Avors avéntv-
Eey dveEaotitas thy Enoply tys neol ths “Exndnoias, thy dnopty ty¢
meol Tod Aevtoveynuatoc t06 [létoov évtd¢ tig "Exudnotas, tris émgo-
xeito va &yn wg tedinoy anoréheoua tHY dvaxnovéw tod °Adabitov sis
rip A’ Batixariyy Xbvodov 106 1870. Adry 1 avdarvéic HOCVATO VA a-
276

vapévetar peta tiv Lbvodov tod 879 - S80. Kai i) Avatosy avéntv-
Eev dpuoims thy idimyy THs drop megl THs “Lxxinoias. “Otay tehixa@s
ai ’Exxdnoia adtai noocend0noar adhw va CovvartyPobyy», 4 Avtixy
dows vetvam0n téoov Capms xal técor Teheing, Hote i Avatosy dév
aveyvaoiev tov Eavtov tHS aA€ov eig adtiy tiv Pouaixyy avtiAnpw
meot tH¢ > Hxndnotac.

To 879 1 évétns énetedyOn mag diac tac b~Llotapévas dtapogeE-

tixag avtiAjwerc. Advata T0879 va yirn OV Huds pia oixovuErtx?)
rodnhnows; Abto eivat to B€ua tod tEehevtaiov xeyasaiov abtis ths
pedétys (Kep. VIL). Ti dvvducba va aodEmpey cig to wéAdoy sg 1006
abt; Avydpeba va avahoyioIG@mer mEegtaddtEegov tac idéag tas m00-
xvpaoas &% ths avalboews xai tHo «reflection»;
‘“H *Exxdynoia eivar 4 «éx - xdnoia», «ex - xexdnwévny éx tov
hady. “H Lvodog Géhet va eivat i} avOoanivyn &xpoacig abtod tod «xe-
xAnuévov Aaod tod Ocob», th¢ ’ExxAnoias. Mia Sévodoc dév civat ana-
oaitytoc. “Ap étégov 1° Exxiyoia tod Xovotod dpethet va exyoaoOh wé
avOowmivor todnov. “Ya abtiy thy éxopw uia Ldvodog civat dvayxaia,
adhe. abt 1] Gvayxn Oév Outhei MEOl THS MoEyis, Fxiwatos 7} Necyodu-
patos tn0 ta Onoia adtal ai (Lvvodouv) apéner va AGBovr ydoar.
“HT éxyoaois atty tio “ExxAnotas Ovvatat va sivas xeove sétE9Or
7) Gdvyotegoy Ajons. Kis uiav Lvvodorv 4 >Exxiynoia dbvatat va. eivat
MEQLIGOTEQOY 7] OALyOTEQOY Aagodoa. Kis tiv iotooiay Ho.cpérar LY-
vodot ExagaxtnoloOnoar «Oixovperixaiy. “O bo0¢ «Oixovuerixi) éxon-
ayononOn xata Te@tov did vA AOGdLOgicNn TOY éxionuov adbtoxoa-
Toglixov yapaxtijoa uiag Lvvddov. Boeaddtegov xatéotyn éxions xal
Deohoyixd¢ 6006, dia va Expodoy Deohoyixds tiv nayxoopuistyta xal
oixovperixdtyta as Lvvedov. Ai Oixovuervixat Lbvodor Foay 1 oi-
xovperixn Expoaois ths xabohixns “Exxdnoias &>o nayxoouiov xat oi-
xovperixns. Mia torn Xbvodog éxpodler xai adti tiv °Exxdnoiar,
GA axeiBa> Oo (tomxy» expoacis tis xal’ Shov ’Exxdnoias. ’ Ano-
doxn was Xvvddov &x uégove tis “Exxdnoias ws Oeohoyim@o Oixovue-
munis onuaiver dtr xa’ dhov ’Exxdnoia avayvaoicer eig thy Ldvodov
avr» tov Eavtoy tH¢ Ev tH xaBodixdtytL xal oixovperixdtyti Tov.
‘Qovopévar ad tag Oixovperixag Lovddovg—az.y. Kwvotartwov-
rohews tod 381 xai Kwvotavtwovadiews tod 553—dvoxdhuc ddbvartat
ra yaoaxtnorobody «Oixovuerixai), éay THY dvtipocdxevow sic abtac
Deworjowper pé tiv évvovay bt 6Aot ot Extoxonot 4x0 6hoV TOY yolotiavi-
xOV XOOMOY 70a MAQdYTEC. "Owns sig abtag tds, odtmc elmety, (Tom
xdc) Lvvddovg 1) xal? Ghov °Exxdnola dveyvdouse tov éavtdy ts &v
 277

“tH xabodixdrtyte xai oixovuerixdtyti tov. “Qo éx todtov ai «tonixal)

abta Lvvodo xatéotyoay DVeohoyixms Oixovuerinal. To aytibetoy ei-
vat Exions Ovvatdéy. Lbvodou ovyxAnbeioa oo «Oixovuerixai) dév G-
> / » ~

veyvMoicbnacay ws éxpoaotc ths xa’ 6lov

7 6 a : bg
’Exxdnoiac xal wo éx todtov
Ss ~ ? 5} VE wh / \ if > ,

dév EeworOyoay év tH iotovia Beodoyix@¢o Oixovuerixal. Todto dév

yA > ~ ~ ~

onuaiver dvayxaims dt toradtar expodoers Hoary (éopahuévaw) 7 Cai-

oetixav). Hdvvarto dovota va anorelody éyxdoous éxpodaets, 6uwc u6-
/ 2 \ BA eX! ©) ~ Ly

voY (TOMS Eyutoovc) ExpOdCEts.

‘H Doriewos Lbvodos tod 879 - 880 ovvexdjOy oo Oixovperixt

Xbv0d0s, ao Lbvodog tho Adtoxeatopiac. Ey tovroic obte 1) ’ Avato-
An odte 4 Adbos axedézyOn év tH iotopia tiv Xivodor abtiy dc Oeoho-
yix@s Oixovmerinyy. Ard noioy Aoyor; >Aogadés 4 iotogia petexet-
oicby xaxdc¢ adbtyny tyv Lbvodov. “Yadoyer dus ddhoc Adyosc, évexa
tod Omoiov Oéy aveyywoioOn a>o Oixovpenxy; ‘Yadoyer! Mia petaye-
veotéoa Lbvodos 7).0n0ia 0a jHdvvato va avaxnovén tiv Oixovperixotn-
ta ts, dev exer AdBer yhoay eicét. “H oféig ta&v oyéoewv wetakd tov
tomixayv Hxxdnovdy ° Avatosns xat Avoews xatéotnoe todtoe advvator.
Aéy dvvducba iweic ovjueoov va dnavtiommer cig thy medcxdnow, a-
modexopmevot tHY Lvvodov tov 879 - 880 wo Oixovuerixiy; “Yanoge wia
Livodos évdoews. Ta aitia dratoécews Oéy tod¢ Oujoeoay tote. Ava notov
Adyov va was diatooby tHoa; Aév Oa Hddbvato 4 Xdvvodog adbty va ava-
yrwmo.cO7 b20 ths °Ooboddéov xai tic Kabodixic >Exudnoias w¢ Oeo-
hoyix@>o Oixovperixy, OS 7 nayxdopmios expoaoic tho Mids aayxo-
opiov (Kabohixicy °Exxdnoiac;

’Avatody xai Ados éyovy nadoe va Padilovr eis thy adbtyy 600”,
éyer mavoet va elvae cody - od0cy. “H Avtixn >Exxdnoia énéotoeper
cig THY Ldbvodov rob S69 xal eveyvmguoe tov Eavtdy tg Eig Exeivyy THY
Xivodor, 7) dxoia éy todvtois eiyey dxvoewbh naga tho DBawtieiov Lvvo-
dov, wé THY ovyxatdbeow tod dna *lwdyvov 10d Sov. ’Avaxngdooor-
oa ty Lbvodov tod 869 @ Oyddny Oixovperixny Xbvodov» 4 Popaixy
°Exndnoia earn va tavticn éavthy pé tiv mayxdopsor («xabodixny» )
°Exxdnotar. Ey rodtois, abty % tabtioic obdénote éhaBe coBagoy do-
yuatixoy yapaxthoa. “Ouoios 7° Avatohixn *Exxdnoia éxoged6y ei TI]V
idixry ths 6d6y. O8dEén0TE aanlhevbeodOn aijoms ano wiay (abtoxoa-
Toor) xatavdnow tho “Exudnoias xai tho Kowwviac. Ava péoov
ths totopias 1) "Oo0dd0kog ?Exxdnoia adytote ngocendbnoe va avog-
bdon (LOvixd» aytiyeagva ths Bulartwits Abtoxeatogiac. Kai éxi tay
-Aucody pas eioéte ai oxéoes tH “OoboddEwr *Exxhnowwy mQ0¢ TAG
 278

duapdoous xvBeoviaeic—axdun nal pr) youotianixDy Weohryiav—Jet-

xvoovv btt 4) oTdos abt magapéver CHOa.

Ey tobroic, dvetdomev va. Emrotoepaper cig TO avedua Tod 879 -

880, bre % évdtns xaréoty Svvati ma9a Tas dLapogetixacg ayTLAnperc.
Eic abrhy tiv érrotoogyy eis thy xowny dddv éyxertar 4 MOdxAHoLS THS
Dotieiov Xvvddov.
BeBaiws, toto onuaiver play eidixoug xai coBagav avlytyow
xal Babeiay oxépw ent td gowtjcewr, ai dnoiat dév EAWOnoay xara
tov Gov aidva xal ai dmoia tehixd éxépeoay tiv diaivecw ths Xow
otavinns *Exxdnoiac. Abtal ai éxxAnovohoyixai éomtijaeig magauévovy
béeiau cig thy éexoyry mac. Eivat ai éowtijcers megi Tob xoLtHLloVv THC
GAnOetas nai tio évdtntoc évtos ths °Exxdnotas. “H Popaixn Kabo-
hinnh ?Exndnota motedves dt dxaxover eig tov Adyov tod Ocod, Stay dé--
yetas tH xAjow tod diaddyov tod Llétoov, Mg TO xOLTI}QLOY, MS THY Pw-
wy THs Evdtytos, Oc THY Deinty eyydnow ths adnBobs xnobEewc tod
Adyou tho GAnOeiac. “H "Oedd0k80¢ *Exxdncia—ué to idvov aicOnua
dmanonc—eivar nenevopévyn btt 7 GAjOera xa éavtijy, 4} 6004 mtoTIC
elvat 4 Bdows wal éyydnous tho Evdtytos. Adbtai ai dbo avttAijpers azo-
nAstovy 4 ia THY GAAny; > Eay éxyouev thy Védnow va aijoidowpev Tag”
Eowtijoes abtag mé tH diay éxtOvuiay ths évdtntos, 4 dota éevé-
avevoe tov¢ Ilargoac tod 879 — tavtoyodvac O& Oé,wuer va anoybyw-
bev THY maoddewpiy tTwr,—xal eidixowds, ywois va mo0dmomper THY
Ilagddociv was, toAujowpey va arvtiuetoaiompery abto TO Baoixor Cij-
thua, tote Pepaims 4 évdtns tav “Exxdnoimy 0a yivyn pia moaymati-
xotys. Kai 0a yivn, didte eivat to OéAnua tod Oeod...
"Iows pia alnba¢ Oixovperixy Lévodos “Evicews dév anéyet mode
ano tas muéoas mac!

39210
By,wef1
 EBB
LOG RAP HY

I. SOURCES

Acta Concilii Constantinopolitani IV (869- BA), Mansi XVI 1-208 (Latin

Acts), 300-413 (Greek Acts).
Acta Coneilii Constantinopolitani V (879-880), Mansi XVII 365-525;
Hardouin VI I 243- 344.
ConsTANTINUS' PoRPHYROGENITUS (905 - 959), De administrando Imperio,
PG 113, 327 - 588.
Devuspepit, Card., Collectio Canonum, ed. W. von GLANVELL, Die Kanonen-
sammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit, Paderborn 1905, 610 - 617 (extract
from first 5 sessions). ;
-Aoxiec£02, Ilate. ‘Iepoc., Téuoc yaods, év & neouézorvta ai émotodal Dwtiov..
Prhuvix 1705.
Geroreius Monachus, Vitae recentiorum Imperatorum 813-894, PG 109, 536-
585.
Ivo of Chartres, Decretum, PL 161, 59 - 1022.
Joun VIII, Pope, Letters, MGH Ep. VII (ed. Caspar); PL 126, 651 - 967.
-Puotius, Letters, PG 102, 585 - 990.
— Mystagogia, PG 102, 279 - 400.
— Homilies, ed. C. Manco, The homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constan-
tinople, Washington, 1958.
Lwrtayua tov Oeiwy xai tegdv xavdvoy (&%8. I. A. Paasane xat Ioranz),
6 téwot, “ASFva. 1852-1859, '

II, STUDIES

1. History

_Apvonz, N., d’Age et Vorigine de ?empereur Basil I (867-886)», Byzantion 9

(1984) 223-260.
AuRWEILER, H., «Sur la carriére de Photius avant son patriarcat», BZ 58(1965)
348-363.
AAIBIZATOY, A.L., Of iegoi xavdres xai ot ExxAnowaotixol vomot, “ADjvar 1949 (2).
Amann, E., «Photius», DTC XII/2 (19385) 1589-1590.
- lUEpoque carolingienne, Fuicun-Martin, VI (1937) 465-501.
Awnastos, M., «The transfer of lyricum, Calabria and Sicily to the jurisdiction
of the patriarch of Constantinople in 732-33» (Silloge Bizantina in Onore
di Silvio Giuseppe Mercati), Stwdi Bizantini e Neoellenici, 9(1957) 14-31.
BarkeER, E., Social and political thought in Byzantium, Oxford 1957.
-BEeveEREGIUS, GUILIELMUS, Synodikon sive Pandectae canonum SS. Apostolo-
rum, et Conciliorum ab Ecclesia Graeca receptorum, Oxonii 1672.
 280

BeRNARDAKIS, P., «Les appels au pape dans l’église grecque jusqu’a Photius»,.
EO 6(1907) 30-42, 118-125, 249-257.
Bosarski, J.P., Historya Focyusza, Apostola syzmy moskiewski2], greckic)
i innych wschodnich narodow, Lwow 1895.
Mnonu, K.I., Koloews éni tiwwr onueiny ths mohite2<]; 190 Boris, "AIH
1.959%
Breuer, L., La Querelle des Images, Paris 1904.
- «The Greek Church: Its relations with the West up to 1054», CMH IV
I 246-273.
- Vie et mort de Byzance, Paris 1969.
Browne, L.E., The eclipse of Christianity in Asia; from the time of Muham--
mad till the fourteenth century, New York 1967.
Bure, A. AA., «Paus Johannes VIII en Constantinopel, COH 5(1952-1953)
269-278; 6(1953-1954) 24-32.
Bury, J.B., A history of the Eastern Roman Empire from the fall of Irene to
the accession of Basil I (802-867), London 1912.
Caspar, E., «Studien zum Register Johanns VIII», Neues Archio der Gesell--
schaft fiir altere deutsche Geschichtskunde, 36(1911) 79-156.
DeLenaye, H., Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris. Synaxarium
Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e codice Sirmondiano nune Berolensi,
adjectis synaxariis selectis, Bruxelles 1902. °
De Vrizs, W. SJ., «Die Entstehung der Patriarchate des Ostens und ihr Ver--
haltnis zur p&pstlichen Vollgewalt. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem
Verhaltnis von Episkopat und Primat», Scholastik 37(1962) 341-369.
- «Die kollegiale Struktur der Kirche in den ersten Jahrhunderten», Una
Sancta 19(1964) 296-317.
- «Die Struktur der Kirche gemass dem II. Konzil von Nizaa (787)», OCP
33(1967) 47-71.
- «Die Struktur der Kirche gemass dem III. Konzil von Konstantinopel
(680-681)», Volk Gottes, Festgabe fiir Josef Hofer, Freiburg i Br., 1967
(Hrsg. von R. Baumer und H. Dolch).
- «Die Struktur der Kirche gemass dem IV. Konzil von Konstantinopel
(869-870)», Archioum Historiae Pontificiae 6(1968) 7-42.
- «Konzil in ostkirchlicher Sicht», StdZ 170(1962) 404-417.
- «The “College of Patriarchs’», Concilium 1(1965) n.8, 35-43 (English edi--
tion).
Dé.cer, F., «Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner, Zeitschrift fiir Kir--
chengeschichte 56(1937) 1-42.
- «Urkundenfalscher im Byzanz», Festschrift Stenkel, (1952) 3-20.
Ducuesne, L., Le Liber Pontificalis. Texte, introduction et commentai
re, I,.
Paris 1886.
Dvornik, F., Byzance et la primauté romaine, Paris 1964.
- Byzantine Missions among the Slavs, New Brunswick, NJ., 1970.
- «Das neue Bild des Patriarchen Photios», Berichte zum
XI. Internatio-
nalen Byzantinisten Kongress, Miinchen 1958, III/2.
- «De auctoritate civili in Conciliis Oecumenicis», Acta
VI Conventus Ve--
lehradensis 1932, 156-167.
 281
- «Emperors, Popes and General Councils», Dunbarton O1k3 Papers 6
(1951).
«Etudes sur Photios», Byzantion 9(1936) 1-19.
- «Le premier Schisme: de Photios», Bulletin de I’Institut Archéologique
bulgare 9(1935) 312-325.
- Le Schisme de Photius, Histoire et légende, Paris 1950.
- «Le second Schisme de Photius», Byzantion 8(1933) 425-474.
- Les légendes de Constantin et Méthode, eues d2 Byzance, Prague 1933.
- Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au 1 X° siécle, Paris 1926. (reprint, Hattie-
sburg 1970),
- «Patriarch Ignatios and Caesar Bardasy, Byzantinoslavica 27(1966) 7-22.
«Patriarch Photius, Scholar and Statesman», Classical Folia 13(1959)
3-18; 14(1960) 3-22. .
«Photios, Patriarchy, LThK, VIII, 1963, 484-488.
- «Photius et la réorganisation de V’académie patriarcale», Analecta Bol-
landiana 68(1950) 108-125.
- «Photius, pére du schisme ou apdtre de Vunion?, La Vie Intellectuelle
11(1945) 16-28. ies
- «The Circus parties in Byzantium. Their evolution and suppression»,
Byzantina- Metabyzantina 1(1946) 119-138.
- The Ecumenical Councils, New York 1961.
- The idea of apostolicity in Byzantium and the legend of the Apostle Andrew,
Cambridge, 1958.
- «The Patriarch Photius and Iconoclasm», Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7
(1953) 67-97.
- «The Patriarch Photius in the light of recent research», Berichte zum XJ.
Internationaien Byzantinisten Kongress, Miinchen, 1958, [II/2.
- The Photian Schism, history and legend, Cambridge, 1948 (reprint 1970)
(=Dvornik). A long bibliography is found on pp. 474-487.
- «The Schism between East and West», Eastern Churches Review 1(1966-
1967) 6-11.
- «Voorgeschiedenis van het schisma van Michael Caerularius», Concilium
2(1966) n.7, 148-153. (In the French edition «Les origines du Schisme
de Michel Cérulaire». Concilium n. 17, (1966) 137-157) With a posts-
criptum of A. Burg,
- «Which councils are ecumenical?», JES 3(1966) 314-328.
Enssuin, W., «The government and administration of the Byzantin Empire»,
CMH IV II 9-54.
Every, G., The Byzantine Patriarchate (451-1204), London 1948.
- acralization and secularization in East and West in the first
millenium after Christ», Concilium 5(1969) n.7, 22-27.
EystTPATIAAOY, ©., «Ilept tH onuxotas tod tep0} Dwctov ev tH totooix tod oxi-
ouatoo», “ExxAnovaotinn “Adjbeva 24(1904) 276-279, 310-313, 360-364,
369-370, 384-387, 394-396, 425-428, 440-442, 454-456, 463-464.
Fuicue, A.- Martin, V., Histoire de l’Eglise depuis les origines jusqwd nos
jours, Paris 1907-1952.
Geanacopotos, D., Byzantine East and Latin West, New York 1966.
282

- «On the Schism of the Greek and Roman Churches», GOT R 1(1954) 65-78
Geuzer, H., «Die Konzilien als Reichsparlamente», Deutsche Stimmen (1900)
429.
TENNAAIOY, Mnzp., «Al reel tod icoot} Darton xploeic tay doyatoy xot tay ioto-
oimdyv tio émox7c uac», “Opbodogia 31(1956) 37-68.
GLANVELL, W. von, Die Kanonensammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit, Pader-
born 1905.
GorviLLo, M. SJ., «Photius et Primatus Romanus», OC P 6(1940) 5-39.
Grecorre, H., «Etudes sur le neuvieme siécle», Byzantion 8(1933) 515-550.
- «Du nouveau sur le Patriarche Photius», Bulletin de la classe des lettres
de ’ Académie royale de Belgique 20(1934) 36-53.
Grumet, V., «Byzance et Photius dans les légendes slavonnes des saint Cyril-
le et Méthode», HO 33(1934) 343-353.
- «Chronologie des événemens du régne de Léon VI (886-912), BO 35
(1936) 5-42.
- «Kwesties rond Photius», COH 1(1948-1949) 293-302.
- «La genése du schisme photien», Studi Byzantini e Neo-Ellenici 5(1939)
177-185.
- «La liquidation de la querelle photienne», EO 33(1934) 257-288.
- «Encyclique de Photius aux Orientaux et les patriarches de Constanti-
nople Sisinnius II et Sergius II», EO 34(1935) 129-138.
- «Le ‘Filiogue’ au concile photien de 879-880 et le temoignage de Michel
d’Anchialos», HO 29(1930) 257-264.
«Le schisme de Grégoire de Syracuse», HO 39(1940) 257-269.
- «Les lettres de Jean VIII pour le rétablissement de Photius», HO 39(1940)
138-156.
- «Les Regestes des patriarches de Constantinople», HO 31(1932) 5-16.
- «’Union des Fglises et le nombre des Conciles oecuméniques», I’ Unité
de V Eglise 11(1938) 5-7.
- «New Light on the Photian Schism», Unitas (English edition) 5(1953)
140-148.
- «Photius et Paddition du filioque au symbole du Nicee-Constantinople»,
REB 5(1947) 218-234.
- «Qui fit Penvoyé de Photius auprés de Jean VIII?», EO 32(1933) 439-
443.
- «Un nouvel ouvrage sur le Schisme byzantin»y, HO 39(1940) 458-479.
- «Y eut-il un second schisme de Photius
?», Reewe des Sciences philosophi-
ques et théologiques 22(1933) 432-457.
HERGENROETHER, J., Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel. Sein Leben,
seine Schriften und das griechische Schisma, 3 Bande, Regensburg 1867-
1869.
Hormann, G., Photius et Ecclesia Romana, Roma 19382.
- «Ivo von Chartres tiber Photius», OCP 14 (1948) 105-137.
Hussey, J.M. ed., The Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. IV The Byzantine
Empire, Part I, Byzantium and its Neighbours, Cambridge, 1966, Part
II, Government, Church and Civilisation, Cambridge 1967.
Ivantsov - Piratonoy, A.M., «K izsledovaniam o Fotie, Patriarkhe Konstan-
 283

tinopol’skom», Zhurnal Ministerstoa Narodnago Prosvyeshchenia (1892)

n. 280, 124-148; n. 2841, 1-72, 299-315; n. 283, 1-60, 205-250.
lorGa, N., Histoire de la vie byzantine. Empire et civilisation, Bucharest 1934.
Jepin, H., Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church, New York 1961.
- Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, Freiburg i Br., 1962-1970.
Joannou, P.P., «Pape, Concile et Patriarches dans la Tradition canonique
de Veglise orientale jusqu’au [Xe s.», Pontificia Commissione per la
Redazione del Codice di Diritto Canonico Orientale, Fonti, (Ser. 1a),
Fase. 1X, t.I. 2, Roma, 1962, Appendice II, 487-550.
Jucie, M., «Le culte de Photius dans l’Eglise byzantine», Reeue de lOrient
Chrétien 23(1922-1923) 105-122.
- «Les actes du Synode photien de Ste Sophie», EO 37(1938) 88-99.
- Le Schisme byzantin, Apercu historique et doctrinal, Paris 1941.
- «Origine de la‘controverse sur l’addition du Filioque au Symbole», Revue
des Sciences philosophiques et théologiques 28(1939) 369-385.
- «Photius et la primauté de Saint Piérre et du pape», Bessarione 35(1919)
121-130; 36(1920) 16-76.
-
«chisme byzantiny, DTC IV/1, 1939, 1312-1468.
K., «Ie9t Dattov», Oonoxevtix Bavi) 2(1881) 104-107, 112-116, 127-130.
KAAAINIKOY, Mnzo., «O av aylous doytetttoxomog Kevotavtiwourdrcas Datos»,
*Oobodogia 1(1926) 394-404.
KapMiPH, I.N., «O rartorzeyng Darziog xual @ ev Kwvotavtwourdac: obvodosg 709
867», “ExzxAnoia 31(1954) 226-229.
— Téa doypatixa xai ovupohixa pwnusia tis °O900ddE0v xabohixijs °ExxAnoias,
Téuog I, “AdFvat 19607, Téuos II, Graz 1968.
- «The Schism of the Roman Church», Oeodoyia 21(1950) 400-433.
KartTAsHEV, A.V., Vselenskie Sobory, Paris 1963.
Kyprakoy, A., CH yrtetyplsg to} Deatioun, “AvdaAacic, 4(1891) 897-900.
— «leo Darttov», “Adjrvaoy 3(1874) 135-163.
Kusras, G.L., «History and Theology in Photius», GOTR 10(1964) 37-74.
Laemmer, H., Papst Nicholas der Erste, Berlin 1857. -
AaoyPad, B., «O razprdeynsg Dadtiog xal h exoyh tov», Lonydowos 6 Mahapyas
38(1955) 641-73, 152-160.
— WEmotod) 10d mina Urepkvov m9d3 tov witoxektoo% Bustacrov A’», “EA-
Anvina 44(1955-1956) 170-172.
- «The letter of Photius to the Archbishop of Aquileia», KAngovoyia 3,
a (1971) 66-68.
Laporre, A. SJ., Europe et le Saint Siege a Vépoque carolingienne, I Le Pape
Jean VIII, Paris 1895.
Laurent, V., «Le cas de Photius dans l’apologétique du patriarche Jean X1
Beccos (1273-1282) au lendemain du deuxiéme concile de Lyon», EO
29(1930) 396-407.
- «Le titre de patriarche oecuménique et la signature patriarcaler, REB
6(1948) 5-26.
- «Les Actes du Synode photien et George le Métochiter, BO 37(1938)
100-106.
284

Lepepev, A.P., storia konstantinopol’skikh Soboroy IX veka, Moskva 1888.

- Istoria razdelenia tserkvit 9 TX, X 1 XI vekakh, Moskva 1900.
- Ocherki vnutrennij istorii Vizantijsko-Vostochno] Tserkvi 9 1X, X i XT
vekakh, Moskva 1902.
- «Rimskie papy v ikh otnosheniakh k Tserkvi Vizantijskoj v IX-XI
vekakh», Chtenie Obshchestva Lyubitele} dukhovnago proseyeshchenia
(1872) [1 165-184, 392-401, 453-467; II 329-349; (1873) II 539-561; (1874)
Il 349-380, 759-836.
- «Tserkov rimskaya i vizantijskaya v ikh vzaimnikh dogmaticheskikh
i obryadovykh sporakh v IX-XI vekakh», Chtenie Obshchestva Lyubi-
tele} dukhovnago prosvyeshchenia (1875) | 66-100, 173-202, 272-316.
Leis, B., «Saggio sulla psicologia di Fozio», Unitas n. 3(1953) (edizione Italia-
na) 72-80.
LevcHENKO, M.V., Historia Vizantia, Paris 1949.
MANGo, C., The Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, Washington
1958.
Metts, S. van, CP., «Paus Johannes VIII en Bulgarijes, COH 4(1951-1952)
189-201, 262-273.
Micnatcescu, J., Die Bekenntnisse und die wichtigste Glaubenszeugnisse der
griechisch-orientalischen Kirche, Leipzig 1904.
M.K.K., «Ilegi 703 Meyédon Decion natprteyou Kevoravzwourékencn, Néa
Lucy 42(1947) 114-114.
Monnicn, C.W., Geding der Vrijheid; de betrekkingen der oosterse en westerse
kerken tot de val van Constantinopel 1453, Zwolle 1967.
Moreau, E., «La réhabilitation de Photius», NRTh 72(1950) 174-183.
Moypiku, T., «T& megt rod Meycdou Deotiov xetueva Sik Thy Bow tH¢ >Op80d6Z0n
"Exxrnsiacy, Néa Luby 52(1957) 345-363.
Nap’au, P., Photios, Sa résistance et sa soumission au Saint-Siége, pro manus-
cripto, Scolasticat de S. Paul, Harissa (Leban) 1937.
Nemec, L., «Father Dvornik’s view on the reunion of the Churches», Perspect-
ives 6(1961) n.2, 15-20.
- «Photius-Saint or Schismatic?», JES 3(1966) 277-313.
OBoLENSKI, D., The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500-1453,
London 1971.
Ocitskos, D.P., «Konstantinopol’skie Sobory 869-870 i 879-880 godov i
tserkoynava sovremennost’», Messager de l’exarcat russe en Europe oc-
cidentale 17(1969) 218-227.
Ostrocorsky, G., Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates, Miinchen 1952?.
Patmiert, A., «Photius et ses apologistes russes», HO 3(1900) 95-120.
Pau’mov, LS., Tsargradskij Patriarkh Fotij i ego otnoshenie k sovremennomu
emu slavyanstou, S. Peterburg 1891.
TIANarIoTIAoy, L., «O tepd¢ Destioe xaxh zd oxtoua tHyv eéxxdnqordvy, “Oebodosia
9(1934) 66-68, 171-174.
PAPADOPOULOS - KERAMEUS, Pwtiaxd, S. Peterburg 1891.
TTamtAAOm0YAOY - KEPAMEQS, A., CO ratorteyno Dadtiog a TaTHO dytos
THC
"Opbodd20u KaBorxiic "Exxdnotucn, BZ 8(1899) 647-671.
— CH pviyn 70d &yiov Patton, Tdvtawoc 13(1921) 81-85.
 285
Mamaaonoyaoy, Xp., “O &y10z Odtioz», Wavraw: 5(1913) 89-93.
Tanaaonoyaoy, Xp., ITegi tijs EMatHmovixis Oodcews tod Meydhov PDuotiov
zateiaoyou Kwvatartivovndhews, ’AO%var 1912.
TanoyataH, K.K., Ex zis totoptas tév oixovuewixdy Lovédav. ‘H Oiots tod
Butavtivot Adtoxedtopog xatk shy Sikoxerav Hv olxovusvixdsy Lvovésavn,
Fonydous 6 Takayas 53(1970) 70-76.
Perets, E., Papsi Nicolaus I und Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Berlin 1920.
PaAAHe, T.A.- TloTanz, M., Xivrayua tay Oeiwy xai isody xavdvenv, ’ APFHvar
1852-1859.
PoMANIsoyY, 1.2., «Oi “Arytor Kueraros xat Mebddi0g “EAdnves dvtiTpdour7ro1
Aativey eig Ldabousg Evavtr Dodyxwvn, Lonydous 6 Mahauas, 54(1971)
Pa as ehoNEe :
Rosseskin, F.M., «Okruzhnoe poslanie Fotia, patriarkha Konstantinopol’-
skago», Bogoslovskij Vestnik (1915) I 122-158.
- «Pervoe pravlenie Fotia, Patriarkha Konstantinopol’skago», Bogo-
slovskij Vestnik (1914) I] 144-201, 598-668, 924-959.
ScuareF, J., «Photios und die Epanagoge», BZ 4£9(1956) 384-400.
- «Quellenstudien zum Prooimion der Epanagoge», BZ 52(1959) 68-81.
Scuréper, H.J., Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils, Text, transla-
tion and commentary, London 1937.
Seppret, F-X., «Das Schisma des Photius in neuer Sicht», Theologische Revue
48(1952) 81-94.
Lo@AKIANOY, A., CO Méyas Datiogy, MWavtawos 28(1936) 89-91.
LTEOANIAOY, B.K., “Exxdnowaotixi) ‘Iotogia dm days wéxoe ohueoor, ’ADFvar
1959(2).
StepuHanou, P. SJ., «La violation du compromis entre Photius et les Igna-
tiens», OCP 21(1955) 297-307.
- «Les débuts de la querelle photienne vus de Rome et de Byzance», OCP
18(1952) 270-280.
- «Korreferat zu F. Dvornik», Berichte zum XI. Internationalen Byzanti-
nisten Kongress, Miinchen 1958, II1/2.
Stiprnon, D. AA., Constantinople IV, Paris 1967.
Voer, A., Basil let empéreur de Byzance (867-886) et la civilisation byzantine
& la fin du neuviéme siecle, Paris 1908.
Yarep, Jerom. Gerazim, «Otzyvy sovremennikov o Fotie Patriarkhe Kon-
stantinopol’skom v svyazi s istoriyeyu politicheskikh partij v imperiiy,
Khristianskoe Chtenie (1872) n. 1, 4, 6, 8, 12; (1873) n. 4, 6, 10, 12.
ZAKY@HNOE, A., ‘H Bvlartu Abtoxeatogia 324-1071, ’AVFvx. 1969.

2. Theology

Aaxst, P. van der, AA., «De constitutie over de kerk als uitgangspunt voor
een gesprek met de Oosterse Kerken», COH 18(1965-1966) 214-231.
AranassipFr, N., «Le Concile dans la théologie orthodoxe russe», Jrénikon
35(1962) 316-339.
- «Qwest-ce qu’un concile oecuménique?, Messager Orthodoxe (1959) 13-17.
- Tserkoy Dukha Seyatogo, Paris 1970.
286

Auivisatos, H., «Les deux régimes dans l’Eglise uniée avant le Schisme»,
VEglise et les Eglises, Chevetogne 1955, [1 105-116.
- Procés verbaux du premier congres de théologie orthodoxe a Athenes, Athe-
nes 1939.
- «Orthodoxie grécque et le Concile oecuménique», Jrénikon 32(1959)
93-98.
Atimen, J.J. von, «’Eglise locale parmis les autres Eglises locales», Jrénikon
43(1970) 5412-537.
- «Remarques sur la Constitution dogmatique ‘Lumen Gentium’», Irénikon
39(1966) 5-45. p
ANAPOYTIOY, XP., Aoypatixt tho “Oob0ddf0v °Avatohmis °~Exxhnoias, ° ABjyva.
1907, (reprint 1956).
Arsentev, N., «The Second Vatican Council’s ‘Constitutio de Ecclesia’», SVQ
9(1965) 16-25.
Mmaaanoz, A., Eivat dvayxata xai oxcéaipmog i obyxdnow Oixovpentzig Lvvddov;
-AOFvar 1925.
Buaser, P., «Kirche und Einheit der Kirche in der Sicht der Orthodoxie»,
Theologie und Glaube 56(1966) 349-362.
Bratsiotis, P., Die orthodoxe Kirche in griechischer Sicht, Stuttgart 1960.
- «Principes et caracteristiques de l’Eglise orthodoxe», Jstina 8(1961-1962)
107-114.
Buieakovy, 8., l’Orthodoxie, Paris 1932.
CLement, O., «’Ecclésiologie orthodoxe comme ecclésiologie de communion»,
Contacts 20(1968) 10-37.
Concar, Y., l’Ecclésiologie du haut Moyen-Age, Paris 1968.
Desairve, G. SJ., «Diversité dogmatique et unité de la révelation, NRTA
99(1967) 16-25.
- «Le premier des évéques», VRTh 82(1960) 561-579.
- «obornost ou papauté, NRTA 74(1952) 355-371, 467-484.
Doprokionskl, A., «Vaseljenski Sabori Pravoslavne Crkve», Bogoslovje 11
(1936) 163-172, 276-287.
Dorine, H., Kirchen unterwegs zur Einheit, Miinchen 1969.
Driessen, W.C.H. OP., «Het oecumenisch Concilie in de oude Kerk», COH 12
(1959-1960) 239-257.
Duprey, P. PB., «Aspects de ’oecuménisme en 1972», POC 22(41972) 3-47.
- «The Synodal Structure of the Church in Eastern Theology» One in
Christ 7(1971) 152-182,
Evpoximov, P., «Grundziige der orthodoxen Lehre», Die Russische orthodoxe
Kirche in Lehre und Leben, Witten 1966, 62-82.
- «The fundamental desires of the Orthodox Church vis-a-vis the Catholic
Church», Concilium 2(1966) n. 4, 36-40.
Inmoaytoy, *Apytu., «At yevixal ovvdédon, Néa Nid 19(1924) 605-620.
Infallibilité (UV) de V Eglise, Chevetogne 1963.
KapmipH, ILN., To doypatixoy Lvvtaypa Teel *Exxhyoias» tho B’ Batixavelov
ovvddov, ~ADFvar 1969,
Kartasney, A.V., Na putyakh k Vselenskomu Soboru, Paris 1932.
 287
Ktne, H., «A theology of ecumenical councils», Treslogy Diz2st 11(1963)
135-145.
- «Das theologische Verstandnis des dkumenische1 Ko azils), T v20lo gische
Quartalschrift 141(1961) 55-77.
- Die Kirche, Freiburg i Br. 1966.
- Infallibile? Una domanda, Brescia 1970.
- Kirche in Konzii, Freiburg i. Br., 1963.
- Structuren van de Kerk, Hilversum, 1964.
- Wahrhaftigkeit. Zur Zukunft der Kirche, Freiburg i Br., 1968.
Lanne, E. OSB., «’Eglise locale et lEglise universelle», Irénikon 4£3(1970
‘4841-511.
Lapin, P.D., Sobor kak eysshij organ tserkognoj vlasti, (istoriko-kanoricheski
ocherk) Kazan’ 1909.
LINDBECK, G.A., «Ecclesiology and Roman Catholic Renewal», New Theology
2, New York 1968(3), 183-197.
Marort, H. OSB., «Note sur la pentarchie», Irénikon 32(1959) 436-442.
MatzoyKA, N.A., Pévecic xai obaia tod 6e90ddEou ddpuatos, Ozacxrovixn 1969.
Meier, J. CSsR., «Collegialiteit der bisschoppen in het licht van de orthodoxe
ecclesiologie», COH 22 (1970) 3-20.
Meyenporrr, J., The Orthodox Church. Its past avd its role in th: world to-
day, New York 1962.
- «Historical relativism and authority in Christian dogma, SVQ 11(1976)
73-86.
- Orthodoxie et Catholicité, Paris 1965.
- «Vatican II, A preliminary reaction», SVQ 9(1965) 26-37.
Micuet, A., «Sprache und Schisma», Festschrift Kardinal Faulhaber, Miinchen,
1949, 37-69.
NEgEAAA, I1., “Hl dyia xai weydhn odvodos tiz 699053£ov ?Exzxdysiaz, Lespsrs yra
fila Deohoyixnt Gehonon xai mo0Etoiwacia tS, Oesoxrovinn 1972.
- «Episcopal collegiality: a new problem», Diakonia 1(1966) 154-165.
Nissrotis, N., «What still separates us fromthe Catholic Church. An Ortho-
dox Reply», Concilium 6(1970) n. 4, 22-34.
Noxte, J., Dogma in Geschichte. Versuch einer Kritik des Dogmatismus in der
Glaubensdarstellung, Bonn 1970.
Oakty, F., Council over Pope? Towards a provisional ecclesiology, New York
1969.
O’ConneELt, P. SJ., The Ecclesiology of St Nicephorus I (758-828), Patriarch
of Constantinople, Pentarchy and Primacy, Rome, 1972.
Papatetrou, K., «Die Sakularisation und die Orthodox-Katholische Kirche
Griechenlands», Kyrios 3(1963) 193-205.
Peri, V., I Concili e le Chiese, Roma 1965.
Queenan, A., «The pentarchy: its origin and initial development», Diakonia
2(1967) 338-351.
Rauner, K. SJ., «Primat und Episkopaty, StdZ 166(1958) 321-336.
PAAAHE, K.M., «Lleol t&v érapyrgxdv cvvdd@y xxtk 7d Sixatov tis d00dSdZ0v
dvatonxins “HxxAnotacy, “Emetnoic Nowixijs Lyodijc 1(1925) 1-24.
288

Remners, J.G., «De conciliaire gedachte in de oosterse orthodoxie», COH

42(1959-1960) 258-273.
Scumemann, A., «Le patriarche oecuménique et l’Eglise Orthodoxe», Istina
1(1954) 30-44.
- «Towards a Theology of Councils», SVQ 6(1962) 170-184.
Scuuttze, B. SJ., «The primacy of Peter and his successors according to the
principle of universal and eucharistic ecclesiologies», Diakonia 4(1969)
125-135, 259-270, 341-356.
Sravrovsky, A., Essay de théologie irénique, l'Orthodoxie et le Catholicisme,
Madrid 1966. i
@xoaapoy, A., “H ovcia tig 00b0d0kias, “ADjva 1961.
Tuts, G., «’Ecclésiologie de Vatican II et sa portée oecumeniquer, NRTh
99(1967) 3-15.
TremBe.as, P. N., Dogmatique de Eglise orthodoxe catholique, 3 vols., Paris
1966-1968.
— «At oixovuevixal Lbvodor xual to xertHorév tov», “Lxxdnoia 9(1931) 33-36,
49-50.
TocaneL, P. OFMConv., Theologorum et canonistarum dissidentium opiniones
de convocatione Concilii Oecumenici, Romae 1959.
Wittens, B.A., «Kerkelijke gemeenschap en kerkelijke leiding in de conci-
liekonstitutie over de Kerk», Tijdschrift voor Theologie 6(1966) 51-59.
ZHZIOYAA, I.A., “H é6ty¢ tij¢ éxxdAynoias év th Ocia Eiyaoutia xai TH éntoxdam
xaTA TOVS TOEIC MOMTOVS aldvac, ADFva. 1965.
 INDEX ©

Abraham, of Amidae and Sa- Chalcedon, Council of, (451),

mosate, 61. 196.
Allatius, 52. Charlemagne, 190.
Andreas, monk, 62. Church 91, 113, 119, 144, 169ff.,
Androutsos, Chr., 209. 172, 183, 193, 204, 208 and
Anthimus, metropolitan, 50. passim.
Apollos, apostle, 183. Church and State, 86ff, 135,
Aquileia, 104, 185. — 188f., 196, 199ff., 209.
Asbestas, Gregory, of Syracuse, Clement XI, pope, 50.
2.0,22,26,27,174. Commonitorium, 29, 40, 44f.,
Athanasius, 84. 51, 62, 63, 105, 106, 112f.
Congar, Y., 16.
Consensus fidelium, 210.
Constantine, emperor, 104.
Constantine, prince, 53, 75.
Baanes, patrician, 32. Constantine, the Great, 188.
Bardas, brother of Theodora, 20, Constantinople, passim.
ode Constantinople, 3d. Council of,
Barons, 950; “2, 72.*. (680.- 681), 167.
Basil I, emperor, 31, 34, 36, 39, Constantinople, Council of,
GomOS ON ope Look (815), 196.
Basil, of Martyropolis, 62, 124, Constantinople, Council of,
151, 160. (861), 24, 26ff., 145.
Basle, Council of, (14341), 207. Constantinople, Council of,
Beccus, John XJ, patriarch, 52. (867), 29, 30, 31, 76, 110, 165f.
Beveridge, W., 50. Constantinople, 4th. Council of,
Blacherna, Council of Our La- (869), 26, 31ff., 35, 41, 43, 63,
dy at, (861), 23. 66, 68, 70, 74, 79, $1, 83f., 86,
. Boris, Kaghan of Bulgaria, 28, 108, 104f., 118f., 120, 134,
BO, Ge ovhn Bh Os AiGOe 136f., 148, 155, 168, 177, 179
Bulgaria, diocese of, 25, 27, 30, 196, 199) 200, 207.
Sia), GVA, Chis Boa “Ail AG AS oe) Constantinopolitan Version, 74,
6S. Otte, 208.) ATOM 14a. and passim
133, 138, 147, 158, 162f., 166, Cosmas, legate of Alexandria,
173, 184, 190. Hop ZO 160:
Byzantium, passim. Cosmas, of Antioch, 37.
290

Council, passim (see Synod). stian Family) 87, 88, 130,.

Council, ecumenical, 109, 129, 132, 190, 192, 203.
198, 205, 211, and passim. Femix, pope, 146.
Council, the Holy and Great, Filioque, 30, 53, 136, 184ff.
16, 203. Flavianus, patriarch, 142.
Criterion of truth, 16, 200, 208, Florence, Council of, (1439),
210. ; 54, 202.
Cyril of Alexandria, 84, 142. Formosus, of Porto, 28, 29.
Fortunatus, 112.
Franks, 25, 27, 30, 184, 186, 189
and passim.

Daniel, of Ancyra, 156.

David, prophet, 138, 188.
Desiderius, Abbot of Monte Cas-
sino, 45.
Gelasius, pope, 111, 1241, 122.
Deusdedit, Cardinal, 52, 72, 105.
Gerazim, Yared, 15.
Dositheus, of Jerusalem, 50, 72.
George, of Nicomedia, 156.
Dvornik fs 15.°23,24.36, 46,
Gregory Asbestas, of Syracu-
47; 48.938, 54, 577% 793 165;
Sey 20 N22" 26, 29, 47%.
166.
Gregory, og Ephesus, 124, 138,
158.
Gregory, primicerian, 34.
Gregory VII, pope, 71, 86.
Ecumenical Council, 109, 129, Grumel, V., 15.
198, 205, 211 and passim.
Elias, legate of Jerusalem, 62,
125, 151, 152, 159, 160, 169,
196.
Klias Menates, 72. Hadrian I, pope, 103.
Elias, patriarch of Jerusalem, Hadrian II, pope, 30, 31, 33, 42,
160. 85, 105, 108, 142, 145, 156,
Emperor, 76, 174, 188, 194 and 161, 166.
passim. Hardouin, 50.
Ennodius, 112. Henry IV, emperor, 72.
Epanagoge (Enavaywyn), 189, Hergenroether, J., 15, 49, 53,
191. I2,, 74, V48.
Eucharist, 121, 127, 193, 194. Hieria, Council of, (754), 196.
EKugenius, of Ostia, 34, 35, 38, 39, Hinemar, of Reims, 30.
61, 145, and passim. Holy Apostles, Synod in the
Church of the, (859), 23, 26.
Hormisdas, pope, 112.
Horos, 54, 65, 130, 132, 134,
135, 136, 137, 4183ff., 196.
Familia Christiana (the Chri- Humbert, Cardinal, 71.
 294

Teomoclasm, 49 245594. 25 26. Leo, patrician. 120.

29, 59, 75, 87, 109, 135, 168, Leo, prince, 75.
188, 185, 190. Leo, the Great, pope, 99.
Ignatian followers (bishops), 23, Libellus penitentiae, 148.
S2SOy So Oo 0S. Fie Sole, Libellus Satisfactionis, 341, 32,
87, 90f., 94f., 99f., 110, 445f., Dope, AV
(2A eUGIse 163. hee S7Aet 2. Louis, the German, 112.
Ignatius, patriarch, 19, 20, 22, Louis II, King of the Franks, 30.
23,24, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 43,
64, 81, 93, 94, 97, and passim.
Ulyricum, 25. 92:
Indiculus, 112. Magnaura, University, 21, 36.
Innocent I, pope, 441. Marinus II, pope, 71.
Irene, empress, 108. Melkites, 154.
Irene, sister of empress Theodo- Methodius, Apostle of the Slavs,
Pasa OSM or
Irene, ‘Synod in the Church Methodius, patriarch, 20, 81, 90.
of St., (859), 22; 23. Metochites, Georgius, 52.
Ivantsov - Platonov, A.M., 15, Metrophanes, of Smyrna, 22,
86. 55, 68, 64, 117, 120, 121, 122,
Ivo, of Chartres, 52,.105. 144, 156.
Michael I, emperor, 19.
Michael III, emperor, 19, 20, 24,
26, 27, 28, 34, 74, 75, 82.
Michael, of Alexandria,129, 149.
Job Jasites, 53. 150, 152?
John Chrysostom, 111, 142. Michael, of Anchialos, 53.
John, of Heraclea, 125, 132, 156. Monophysites, 196.
John, patrician. 120. Monotheletism, 167.
John VIII, pope, 17, 33ff., 41, Monte Cassino, 45, 46.
Moses, 188.
72, 140, and passim.
John XI Beccus, patriarch, 52. Moslem, 61, 148, 149, 169f., 191.
Mystagogia (Mvotayawyta) 184.
Jugie, M., 15, 52.

Nicea, 1st Council of, (325), 79.

Labbe, Ph., 50. Nicea, 2d Council of, (787), 29,
Ibaurent, “Viz 52: 63, 108, 136, 145, 153, 168,199
Leo Jil, emperor, 25, 87, 92. Nicean Creed, 184, 186.
Leo V, emperor, 87. Nicetas, of Maronea, 53.
Leo VI, emperor, 69. / Nicholas I, pope, 24, 25, 26, 27,
Leo VIII, pope, 166. 29,. 30, 42, 71, 85, 104, 104,
Leo IX, pope, 71. 105, 106, 164, 165f.
 Orthodox Church, passim. tegister, of pope John VIII,
Orthodoxy, 76, and passim. 40ff., 45ff., and passim.
Reichstag, 198.
Robbers’ Council (449), 196.
Rodoald, of Porto, 25, 27, 38, 98.
Rome, passim.
Papadopoulos - Kerameus, _A., Rome, Synod at, (863), 27.
15% Rome, Synod at, (869), 34, 168.
Patriarch, 174, 189, 192, 194, Roman Church, 145, 172, 175,
and passim. 176, and passim. .
Paul, patrician, 120. Roman legstes, 153ff., 161, 4AFOE:,
Paul, of Ancona, 34, 35, 38, and passim.
39, 61, 112, 144, 145, 158. Roman Version, 74, and passim.
Paul, of Populonia, 28, 29. Rossejkin, F.M., 15.
Pentarchy, 146, 177.
Peter, Cardinal, 39, 47, 61, 63,
98, 105, 124ff., 141, 142, 143,
147, 148, 154, 161, 164, and
passim.
Peter Damian, 71.
Peter, of Sardes, 31. Saracens, 19, 34, ot; 62... 125.
Peter, prince, 34, 35. Sardica, Synod of, (343), 26,
Peter, Saint. 28, 58, 76, 84, S25 139, 174.
83, 85, 86, 88, 107, 108, 138, Sergius, father of Photius, 21.
140, 158, 160, 164, 165, 2, Sophia, Church of Saint, 37, 5 eS
>
1738, 175, 178, 179; 483, 200, GO3e625) #31. Shs3"
204. Spoleto, Count of, 34.
Photian bishops, 90. Stephanou, P. 48.
Photian Legend, 72f. Stephen V, pope, 113.
Photian Synod (879 - 880), Studite monks, 19.
passim. Stylianos, of Neocaesarea, 120,
Photinus, Chartophylax, 55, 129. 422:
Photinus, of Sirmium, 111. Symbolic Monuments (XvuBo-
Photius, passim. xk uvnueta), 56.
Pisa, Council of, 207. Symphonia (Luupevia), 137, 189,
Primacy, of the Church of Ro- 191.
me, 28, 43, 82f., 91, 120, 140f., Synod, (see Council), 79f., 84,
154ff., 172, 176, 178, 178, 181, 101f. 104f., 106, 129, 136,
200ff. 146, 194ff., 204, and passim.
Procheiron (Ilpéyersov), 194. Synod, of 87-9 880, 203, and
Procopius, of Caesarea in Cap- passim.
padocia, 124, 125, 138, 141, Synod, of Union, (879 - 880),
155, 157, 159, 165. 68, 168, 194, and passim.
Pseudosynodus Photianus, 72. Synodicon, 238, 109, 197.
 293

Tarasius, patriarch, 21, 43, 90, Vatican I, Council, (1870), 244.

403, 408, 109, 1145, 183. Vatican IJ, Council, (1962-
Theoctistus, logothete, 20. 14965), 16,204, 208, 214.
Theognostus, monk, 27, 33, 105.
Theodora, Empress, 19, 20.
Theodore, of Laodicea, 30.
Theodore, of Patras, 38.
Theodosius, of Antioch, 37, 134,
143, 152.
Theodosius, of Jerusalem, 61, Yared, Gerazim, 15.
142 S19. MoO AGO 463:
Thomas, of Tyre, 134, 148, 152,
154, 164, 175, 177.
Toynbee, A., 167.
Trembelas, P., 209.
Trent, Council of, (1545 - 1563),
ZA ; Zacharias, of Anagni, 25, 27,
34, 38, 98.
Zacharias, of Chalcedon, 20,
30, 59, 133, 139, 154, 155, 156,
Unity, 181ff., and passim. 176, 187.

\ 24ss1
THEOLOGY LIBRARY
CLAREMONT, CALIF.
 f
i ep
i M4 / id od os

i ! «
, a
be f
}

U ne

“3 \
y ;

~ ; a

US wy ;
‘ bax P

rhe
Lie,
Cee he : ohn! + oui

+6 fasted 4 igh ae EX
ae
a ie Patines feetiagti= =
were. bez an,
gk Be. , oe
bf ey, hie mse(ate 4 ead bia pas e
she ;

hs » ek Hb bik S¥s
“a aa . zie, AM}. *: ‘ ont r7 he yan. a
aa a >) zed TS HEE AS
_* ab --
7 - ‘

rah ba Po
Ypowina)
Texva

N.sK.Eoupvanauaacoc
Movoerngiey 207 - Qcoocdoy
Tndkteuve 595 246-539 04
 4

Meijer, Johan A
830 A successful council of union : a theological
879 analysis of the Photian Synod of 879-880 / Jo-
My han Meijer. -- @eooadovinn ; Tatprapxexov I6-
pupa Tlatepuxwy MeAetwv, 1975.
293p. 3 25cm. -- (Avadexta BAatabwy 3; 23)

Bibliography: p.(2791-288.
Includes indexes.