Talk:Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox)

Split this article?
Considering that there are two separate councils which are considered the Fourth Council of Constantinople / Eighth Ecumenical Council, should this article be split and turned into a disambiguation article? The table gets rather cumbersome to try to represent both councils, and it's hard for the article (esp. with the table as it is) not to be stilted to the RC POV as it is now. &mdash; Preost talk contribs 23:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It needs to be either split into two articles -- probably entitled Fourth Council of Constantinople (Catholic) and Fourth Council of Constantinople (Orthodox) -- or it needs to be a single long article with two large sections. If we choose the latter method, then each of the sections needs to have its own table.  Right now the table lists the dates of the orthodox Constantinople IV (879-880), while the Catholic table would list the dates of the other one (869-870). &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 07:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My comments above were in reference to this version of the page. This was the result of POV mass-deletion of half the page, which I have reverted. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 07:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I replaced the template with two separate templates. The old version was muddled  -- it doesn't make sense to list two different councils in one template.  But the new version is not exactly beautiful either.  Also, I wasn't sure what names to use in the top bars of the templates.  I ended up choosing Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) and Fourth Council of Constantinople (879-880) instead of Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic) and Fourth Council of Constantinople (Orthodox). The problem is that those names are anachronistic; no one in the year 881 would have said that these two councils were recognized by two different churches.  &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 07:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Split
We have here two totally different events in one article, going forth and back between them. I started an article Fourth Council of Constantinople (Catholic) and will transfer material from here to there and then have this article deal with the second event of the Orthodox Church only. Of couse, since both pages deat with the Fourth Council of Constantinople, there must be cross- references. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind either way but splitting the article is no excuse for introducing lenghtly POV presentations like the "historical note", especially if they are irrelevant to the subject. Str1977 (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Not correct
"...and is referred to as the First-and-Second Council by Byzantine canonists John Zonaras, Theodore Balsamon, Matthew Blastaris and others."

This is not correct according to the Rudder reference in external links The First-Second Council from the Rudder: according to that, the First-and-Second Council was held in 861. Jubilee♫ clipman 03:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears, on the contrary, that the Fourth Council of Constantinople corresponds to the council called "The Council held in the Temple of Holy Wisdom", which is listed right after "the first-second council". Deusveritasest (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Who don't accept it?
The statement is made that this coucnil is not accepted by all Orthodox. Which ones?

I'm not disputing the statement. I simply would like to know which ones. Montalban (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It is probably put in there to say that the Oriental Orthodox do not accept it. Although that might be a given, I guess it should be there to remain neutral to the name "orthodox". That is just my seeing on it, I cannot find a reason any orthodox besides the oriental orthodox would not accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Historical note - should we keep it or delete it?
Str1977 deleted a significant amount of text with the edit summary 'restrict this to the actual council, rm POV-pushing called "historical note"'. I think the "historical note" is important and the way to address any NPOV issues is to clean-up the wording of the text by removing any POV-slant in its tone. If Str1977 would point out the places where he thinks the text is "POV-pushing", I would be happy to work with him to rewrite it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is important but a) is it written in very one-sided, argumentative manner(*), b) is it not relevant to this council but to the one of Chalcedon.
 * It also contains errors of fact such as "In 858, Photius, ... was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople,[2] making him equal to the Patriarch of Rome per Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon according to the Greek Church.[3]"
 * Photius was first and foremost appointed Patriarch of Constantinople. Even if true, why should the supposed equality with Rome be highlighting especially in reference to Photius. The dispute was about who was the legitimate Patriarch, not some equality with Rome.
 * Secondly, canon 28 did not make Rome and Constantinople equal but placed it at number 2 (what's disputed is whether 1st and 2nd meant "among equals"). Canon 28 was not ratified by Pope Leo (and contradicted by his legates during the last session of Chalcedon) but not due to its effect but because the canon reasoned that "New Rome" was elevated to due it being the imperial city, suggesting that the same was true with "Old Rome".
 * The article continues "never ratified by Pope Leo I. Emperor Michael III had deposed the previous patriarch, Ignatius.[2]" - This switching back and forth between the article's topic and something else is disturbing.
 * (*) For the argumentative manner, consider: "Some historians purport that Canon 28 was accepted in the West, but this is controverted and wholly unlikely ... However, this argument cannot withstand the acts of the second session of the Council of Chalcedon ..." and, on another issue: "This clearly demonstrates that Leo's tome was not taken as ultimate authority ...", clearly the opinion of the passage's author. But, as usually, "clear demonstrations" are not that clear at all. In any case, apologetic attempts to deprive Pope Leo of the important role that he played around the Council of Chalcedon, should not be included in any article, certainly not in an article that covers a council four centuries later. Str1977 (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate opening statement
The article opens with the statement, "The Fourth Council of Constantinople, as accepted by Eastern Orthodox churches as the Eighth Ecumenical Council,[1] was held in 879–880. It confirmed the reinstatement of Photius as Patriarch of Constantinople." I presume that "as accepted" means "which is accepted". That is just a matter of English grammar. But the claim "accepted by Eastern Orthodox churches as the Eighth Ecumenical Council" seems unfounded. The source cited for the claim does not say that any Eastern Orthodox church accepts it as an ecumenical council. Instead, it speaks of the council as "sometimes called the eighth ecumenical in the East" - not "by Eastern Orthodox churches" as a body, but perhaps only by individual ecclesiastics or groups. An Eastern Orthodox http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer.aspx?ID=551 website] states with regard to this council and the one known as the Fifth Council of Constantinople: "It is unlikely that these councils will be formally recognized but their teachings are consistent with the broader and permanent life of Orthodox Christianity."

Accepted by all the E.O.
@Veverve Why did you revert my edit? The entirety of Eastern Orthodoxy accepts Photius I as 'Saint Photius the Great Patriarch of Constantinople'. Can you point me to even ONE Eastern Orthodox autocephalous church that rejects this council? You can't because the moment someone rejects it they're not Eastern Orthodox anymore. It's status as '8th Ecumenical Council' is disputed, but it is still universally accepted and is, in fact, binding. ValidUsernamefr (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Veverve ValidUsernamefr (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * please provide a WP:RS for your claim. Veverve (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Veverve I would ask that you provide a reliable source for the opposite; Saying that some, but not all Eastern Orthodox accept the council seems more daring than to say that the Eastern Orthodox church accepts it. I don't think I will link to you every local church's website trying to prove you that all patriarchates venerate st Photius, since the very reason the Great Schism happened was papal supremacy and the filioque, which this council rejects.
 * The description and title either way affirms that this is an Eastern Orthodox council. The claim that only some Eastern Orthodox accept it is totally untenable and if you don't provide a source for it you are acting in bad faith and falsely portraying the Eastern Orthodox church as divided on dogma.
 * https://www.goarch.org/chapel/saints?contentid=527&PCode=PRODIGALM&D=M&DT=02/06/2023
 * https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2023/02/06/100442-saint-photius-patriarch-of-constantinople ValidUsernamefr (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would ask that you provide a reliable source for the opposite: WP:BURDEN is on you since you are the one who wants to change the article. Please keep in mind that source(s) need(s) to state this council is accepted by the whole EOrthodox Church; the question is not whether EOrthodox consider Patriarch Photius a saint.
 * Please refrain from WP:PA, and please assume WP:GOODFAITH. Veverve (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Veverve I think it is the same question, since without this council Photius is a deposed patriarch and a heretic. This is the council that restored him.
 * I am sorry if I got abrupt, but I find it absurd that you would restore it to the last one, that is the one that claims that not all E.O. accept it, when at best there is no reliable source for either and at worst the reliable source for my version is evident all over the Eastern Orthodox articles, including this one, and is being ignored and questioned.
 * Here one of the sources used in this article https://web.archive.org/web/20180302073357/http://reocities.com/heartland/5654/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html
 * explicitly says in section (a): "The Orthodox Church does not enumerate any more beyond the Seven, although she accepts several Councils which occurred afterwards and call themselves "Ecumenical" (as their minutes show). One of them is the so-called Eighth Ecumenical or Constantinople IV (879-880)." ValidUsernamefr (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me also quote the article you yourself linked. 'The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds  or restores  material' ValidUsernamefr (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have made the change according to what you have said.
 * You did not understand WP:BURDEN. Veverve (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Veverve Thank you, I will also take th liberty of re adjusting the description. ValidUsernamefr (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also like to apologise for assuming bad faith, I see in the edit history that you have been doing a very good job. ValidUsernamefr (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)