Jdigrande,
As you note, historically there was very little dispute that the Eighth council was Ecumenical, until, at least, the west started to back away from it. I can’t tell you historically how other Orthodox jurisdictions have viewed it and whether the limitation of the councils to seven is an ecumenical concession to the west. I am not aware of any Orthodox jurisdictions that contest even a jot or title of what was decided at the eighth council.
Jdigrande's posting had much good information. Whether they are given the title "ecumenical" or not, the councils of AD 861, 878-880, 1285, 1341, 1347, 1351, and 1368 were of utmost importance. What is important is that we follow the theology of these councils inasmuch as they represent the ecumenical consensus of the Orthodox Church. We can have no doubt that there were pressures by censors in Venice against publishing Greek books that referred to these councils as "ecumenical." Even the Philokalia (published in Venice in 1782) had to go through that review and censorship process. In the back of the 1782 edition of the Philokalia are the words, in Latin, "nothing contrary to the Holy Catholic Faith." And the censors meant the papal faith. Latin influences may also be responsible for Euchologia (Prayer Books) that refer to "seven mysteries." There are seven mysteries, yes, but not only seven. Monastic tonsure and anointing of a king are mysteries also, bu they are wrongly excluded from the Latin-minded phrase "seven mysteries."
I have noticed that Ecumenical Patriarch Gennadius II Scholarius (George Kurtesius) is referred to as "saint" by some people. Why? I am glad that he followed Saint Mark Eugenicus of Ephesus's request to switch sides from the pro-Unia side to the anti-Unia side. However, he was a follower of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas and many of his writings are not Orthodox but Latinophrone (Latin-minded). A full edition of his works in Greek can be found in Oeuvres complètes de Georges Scholarios (8 volumes), edited by Louis Petit, X. A. Siderides, and Martin Jugie.
Gennadius Scholarios was not a bishop at Florence, although he supported the false union.
He did read Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine but I do not know if he knew Latin or just read the Greek translation.
I consider him a saint but my personal opinion is not worth much. He has ikons of him printed but I am asking which TOC's consider him a saint, if any?
He was not a big fan of St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas post 1439 in that he backed St. Gregory of Cyprus and the Tomos of 1285 as the 9th Council. The Tomos of 1285 was a total rebuke of both St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas on the Filioque.
What he also deserves praise for was that he took the Orthodox Church into the Muslim captivity and did a great job on that. It could have gone much worse. He was very close to St. Mark of Ephesus.
Are his works translated into English or just French?
What I respect also is that he read his (and our enemies in detail. There are many people who are anti this or that but do not critically read their enemies. The Council of 1443 was presided over by him. Does anyone have any details on it? I know it rescinded the robber council of 1437-9.
It would be a great service if his works in 8 volumes, St. Gregory of Cyprus (Autobiography), St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus would all be translated into English.
It would be a huge task but this period in our church's history is absolutely crucial. It would be of benefit in that from 1274-1453 was a period of almost total apostasy in 2nd Rome and also a period where the minority defended the faith.
St. Photius The Great's letters have been translated and they are fantastic. The same should be accorded to these four great saints. How they changed and how they viewed the crisis of their times would give us a deeper perspective on our own age.
On one hand English is a universal language but perhaps Russian should be the language they are translated into first.
Early in their lives both St, Nicholai Velimirovich and St. Tikhon both prayed as a priest and a bishop with Anglicans in London and the U.S. but they repented later. I take the same tact with St. Gennadius Scholarios.
You mean tack. Did the two you mentioned directly above repent ? I wasn't aware of that.
I meant "task" or job to translate all of this. St. Gennadius Scholarios did repent and St. Mark supported him. The French translator of St. Gennadius (Jugie) was very pro Latin and should be taken with more than a grain of salt. He was very much like Gibbon with regard to the Orthodox Church.
Why are these councils so important?
From 879-1453 the main disputes concerning the Trinity centered on the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the other two Persons of the Godhead. We have been fed a false Papal narrative for 1000 years that the schism between Rome and Constantinople occurred in 1054 and was not based on theological heresy, but was just a personal schism over mere details. So it was very easy for the Pope to end this schism with the Masonic Patriarch of Constantinople (Athenogoras) in 1965. From that false end to the "Great Schism", the TOC's (Florinite) based their further separation from the New Calendar (but not a total break until 1974).
But the reality is that the bull of excommunication over heresy should have been laid on the altar in Rome by the Orthodox in 1016 (39 years before the events of 1054) during the reign of Emperor Basil II where 2nd Rome reached its apogee as far as military and political power were concerned. Why did the Orthodox Church and Empire just let the Latin negation of the 8th Council and the insertion of the Filioque into the Creed go in 1016?
I see the Orthodox as making a Faustian bargain with Venice and its naval power in 1016. Venice was chanting the Filioque and destroyed the 8th Council too in 1016. Economic, military and political power were uppermost in their minds and they shared this penchant with the Empire under Basil II. No church leader confronted either the Emperor, the Venetians or the Papacy during this crucial 39 year period.
Venice paid no taxes on trade in the Eastern Mediterenean and in exchange gave 2nd Rome naval power to match their military mastery on land during the reign of Basil II which ended in 1025.
This Faustian bargain by 2nd Rome would extend all the way to 1453 despite the Venetian rape of Constantinople in 1204. That is why the main Venetian Crusader rapist (Dandolo) continued to be buried in honor on the 2nd Royal floor of Hagia Sophia during this period and to this day for that matter. This false bargain was the main focus at Florence in 1437-39 where the Faustian bargain was theological compromise over heresy in exchange for Venetian naval power and a land Crusade to throw back the Muslims.
The focus was not on the conversion of the Latins in 1439 except for St. Mark.
The point of any council is to bring the heretics to their senses and convert them like the lost sheep they were. If the Latins had accepted 879, 1285 and 1341/51 at Florence then the process of teaching them how to pray in the hesychastic manner would commence which would have had a profound effect in the West along with the uncreated grace of the true sacraments.
The basic Latin heretic in 1439 from the Pope on down had forgotten how to pray and forgotten theosis. They were sick and outside the Church and needed healing after being confronted by the truth. The last thing they needed was to be confronted by an Orthodox Church who negated 879, 1285 and 1341/51 before they stepped off the boat except for St. Mark of Ephesus.
What does this have to do with us today?
I think it would be very beneficial for any TOC church to list the councils it adheres to and explains them to its members on a regular basis. We do not adhere to people but infallible dogmatic and canonical councils and the infallible scripture they are based on. Most TOC members do not know the history of these councils. Many of them never were added to the Rudder or were excised out by the Latins who controlled all or most publishing from 1500-1900.
We should compose services to these councils and the saints who presided over them. Ikons should be written for 879, 1285, 1341,1351,1672.
Today the Ecumenical attack is mainly on the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church rather than on the Holy Spirit's relationship with the other two Persons of the Trinity.
Notice how the Papacy allows one to chant the Filioque or not. It is not an absolute article of faith for them. The only real article of faith for them is the Papacy. The Pope will tell you he believes in 7 Councils and wants to return to the church of those seven councils. At Bari this year everyone was smiling. They all believed in 7 councils, but not the 8th of St. Photius the Great.
The Father does not proceed from the Father alone according to the Pope and in that belief he continues to spit on 879 and St. Photius the Great. But while he spits on our saint, he ecumenically smiles at the same time.
These Councils from 879-1672 are also a great foundation for the TOC's to discuss at the episcopal level. Do they agree to adhere to them? What is their place in the lives of their respective local churches? How can the laity/priesthood be made aware of them to a much greater degree? Can and should The Rudder be amended to include them?
By doing this they can start to see the forest from the canonical trees surrounding them to a much clearer extent.
There is another aspect of ignoring and/or not applying the Councils of 879, 1285, 1341-51 and 1672 that confuses me.
In 1922 and 1923 the Jerusalem Patriarchate and Church of Cyprus accepted Anglican sacraments as valid and grace filled.
There was no real reaction from the entire Orthodox Church to this ignoring of the above mentioned councils. The anathemas of the above mentioned councils were not applied to them. Why not? Did anyone in the Greek OC movement ever speak against them in the 1920's or 30's? Where these decisions by the Jerusalem Patriarchate and Church of Cyprus ever rescinded? When Met. Chrysostomos of Florina went to the Jerusalem Patriarchate in the mid 1930's to look for support for the OC position in Greece, was this acceptance of Anglican sacraments by the JP still in effect? And if it was, why was there no protest against it in public by him or others in the Greek OC Church of 1935?
At the time it was estimated that at least 60% of Anglican clergy were Masons. I can only imagine that that number is much higher today, 100 years later.
What was the thinking behind this lack of a decision on the part of the Greek Church, from whence the clergy of the Jerusalem Patriarchate and Church of Cyprus (who elected Meletius Metaxis as Metropolitan of Kition in 1910) came from?
These two decisions by the Jerusalem Patriarchate and the Church of Cyprus were linked to the Encyclical of 1920 and the Masonic Council of 1924 that adopted the New Menalogion. In 1925 Met. Antony Khrapovitsky exhorted Anglican seminarians to convert pagans (I think he was speaking to future missionaries) to the Anglican faith at Nicea for the 1600the anniversary of the Council of 325 AD. At this council were representatives of the Church of Cyprus and the Jerusalem Patriarchate.
In 1927 Met Sergius betrayed the Orthodox Church and turned to Stalin but it must be remembered that he rejected the Councils of 1341-51 and St. Gregory Palamas in public in 1913 and was never censured or defrocked for doing this by the Russian Church. Met. Athony Khrapovitsky was never censured or defrocked for his public statement on the Anglicans at Nicea by ROCOR and ROCOR never spoke a word against either the Jerusalem Patriarchate or the Church of Cyprus concerning their acceptance of Anglican sacraments as valid and grace filled in 1922-23.
This is why it is so important to understand and apply these councils to our problems in the 21st century.
The doctrine of the Holy Spirit includes:
1.The eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone (879-St. Photius),
2.The temporal procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son (879-St. Photius the Great),
3.The eternal manifestation of the Holy Spirit through the Son (1285-St. Gregory of Cyprus and St. John of Damascus),
4 The acquisition of the Holy Spirit within ones heart through theosis (1341-51-St. Gregory Palamas).
5.The difference between the energies and the essence of the Trinity through uncreated grace (1341-51-St. Gregory Palamas) which corresponds to the
difference between the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone and the eternal manifestation of the Holy Spirit through the Son (1285-St.
Gregory of Cyprus).
There are anathemas attached to all these councils and they were ignored in 1922 and 1923 by the entire Orthodox Church. Why?
In my opinion it was the result of the hypnotic affect of the heresy of ecumenism which had existed from the middle of the 19th century through the branch theory as practiced by monarchies who headed their churches rather than having their churches headed by Patriarchs who adhered to these councils.
The second reason has to do with the massive infiltration of the clergy by Masons that occurred from the middle of the 19th century which accelerated in the 20th century at breakneck speed. Masonic ordinations of priests, bishops, metropolitans and Patriarchs occurred throughout this period and beyond.
The third reason was the concentrated affect of 500 years of propaganda against these councils by the Papacy and control of the Papal editing of virtually all publication of Orthodox books. This massive Papal effort was paired with the control of most Orthodox theological academies in the 17-19th centuries by either Jesuits and/or Masons.
The result was the almost hypnotic acceptance of ecumenism by the entire "Christian" world from the middle of the 19th century into the 20th century.
St. Tikhon of Moscow who was later patriarch and martyred by the Soviets was praying in vestments with Anglicans in the early 20th century in the United States and St. Nicholai Velimirovich was praying with Anglicans in London during the same period.
They later repented of this but their actions are indicative of the hypnotic effect of ecumenism which produced the ignoring of these councils and their anathemas as a whole during this whole period. The Russian Church took 300 years to canonize St. Gregory Palamas due to the educational conditions of Papism and Masonry that were imposed on their educational system. But many Latin-educated clergy (like Met. Sergius in 1913) did not accept him or his sanctity. And no one rebuked or defrocked him for it.
These councils on the Holy Spirit have to be understood and defended as a whole and not in separate parts. At Florence in 1439 St. Mark wanted to teach and defend them as a whole but was turned down by the Emperor and Patriarch. He never said another word.
So that is why I feel the need to discuss and defend these councils now in 2018, 1000 years after the Orthodox Church should have defended the 8th Council when the Papacy sought to destroy it and insert the Filioque into the Creed in Rome and Venice.
Is there any historical book in Greek describing the history of the Jerusalem Patriarchate in the 20th century? I have found nothing in English. Do they still accept the sacraments and orders of Anglicans as grace filled?
The Anglicans still spit on all our councils (879, 1285, 1341/51, 1583-93, 1672), or consider them ecumenically relative. What are we to do in response? It has to be a grass roots response. We can start by celebrating and explaining these councils to the common people in our parishes and discussing them within and between the different OC TOC's represented on this site and beyond.
I had been reading generally about that bizarre and ill-chosen decision of some Orthodox jurisdictions to accept Anglican sacraments. I was stunned at how this could have occurred.
I didn't know in specific which jurisdictions. You say the JP and the Church of Cyprus [ <= which seems liberal, right ? ]. But weren't there more ? Even the EP itself made this evil deal, I thought ?
I thought that was one of the worst ecclesiastical moves I had heard.
What caused the Orthodox to cave in like that after World War I ? Was it respect - or fear of - Britain, one of the winners of the war ? Or it was just a glaringly horrible fashion of the moment ?
But then like you say, JdG, is this recognition still continuing ? That would be excellent to investigate.
And it's very surprising that Rocor never said a word against this ridiculous move. There was no one to represent the Russian Church but Rocor, for Patriarch Tikhon's Church was held in a vise-like grip by the Bolsheviks and thus was not free to say anything about anything.
Met Anthony's poorly selected words to the Anglican missionaries reflect a need to placate the powerful British Empire.
Maybe the other jurisdictions suddenly buckled and endorsed the Anglican 'faith' due to such considerations ?
There were 60 % Masons in the Anglican 'hierarchy' at THAT time ? What percentage do you think there are now, 99.9 % ?-!
