The First-Second (Protodeutera) Council of Constantinople: A Brief History

Professor Alexey Petrovich Lebedev (+1908),

Moscow Theological Academy

Source: History of the Councils of Constantinople of the Ninth Century (861–880) [in Russian], University Printing House, Moscow, 1888.

The Council of Constantinople of 861, [207] which took place in the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople, serves as an expression of the significance enjoyed by [St.] Photius in his time and of the power possessed by the Photians’ party.

Unfortunately, the acts of this council have not been preserved; they were destroyed when the Ignatians again came, for a time, to the helm of ecclesiastical authority, and took care to erase the traces of the former triumph of the opposing party. [208]

In view of this, the history of the Council of 861 has to be reconstructed on the basis of secondary documents. But here, too, disappointment awaits the historian. The principal documents that help to clarify the history of the council were written by obvious enemies of Photius, who were incapable of recounting the course of the conciliar proceedings impartially. We refer to the biography of [St.] Ignatius, composed by Niketas of Paphlagonia, and to the memorandum of Theognostus. The authors of these works are already known to us: their names appeared on previous pages. On the basis of the reports of Niketas and Theognostus, it is impossible to sketch a complete picture of the activity of the Council of 861; one can indicate only certain outlines that give an idea of the general course of conciliar activity.

The purpose of the council was, on the one hand, to demonstrate the authority and significance of the Photians’ party, since the Ignatians, having been deprived of power, began to arm themselves against the ecclesiastical authority and significance of this party and sought to disturb the Church, and on the other hand, to confine and pacify the Ignatian party.

Everything favored the successful fulfillment of these tasks. Emperor Michael III, despite the fact that he took little part in governmental affairs, was interested in raising the authority of Photius, for he was greatly dissatisfied with the former patriarch Ignatius; Caesar Bardas—the right hand of Michael—being an enlightened man, held the learned Photius in high esteem and was ready to do everything for the exaltation of the new patriarch; the bishops of the Byzantine state were for the most part on the side of Photius and gathered at the council in the number of 318 fathers (a number equal to that of the fathers of the First Council of Nicaea—a number which, it must be supposed, was accidental and not calculated for effect, as Catholic writers assert following Pope Nicholas); at the sessions of the council there participated two legates of Pope Nicholas, the bishops Rodoald of Porto and Zacharias of Anagni, who openly took the side of Photius at the council and thereby angered the Roman pontiff, [209] and when he realized this, he began to claim that his legates had not acted as they should, as a result of tyranny in Byzantium. And as for Theognostus, his dissatisfaction with the legates is understandable even without explanation. The Ignatians hoped that the legates would be on the side of Ignatius, but were mistaken in their calculations. Besides many hierarchs, both Emperor Michael and Caesar Bardas were present at the council together with the highest state dignitaries, which lends this council a particular external splendor.

The council opened in May 861. The emperor arrived for the opening with a splendid retinue. The entire city was set in motion; the streets were filled with the curious; [210] probably many wished to see the procession of the deposed patriarch to the council.

Under what more particular circumstances the opening of the council took place is unknown. But, in all probability, matters proceeded in the same way as at other councils, that is, various documents relating to the convocation of the council itself were read; perhaps speeches were delivered on behalf of the emperor and by some of the leading bishops. Apparently, at the very first session of the council it was decided to summon here the deposed Patriarch Ignatius, no doubt in order to prove his guilt in giving rise to disturbances in the Byzantine Church. For the purpose of inviting Patriarch Ignatius to the council, the praepositus Vaanis and several lower officials were sent to him. Ignatius at first refused to come to the council on the pretext that he demanded to be judged by the pope; but no significance was attached to his declaration. Summoned to the council a second time, Ignatius finally resolved to go. But before setting out, he wished to know in what attire he should come to the council, in episcopal vestments or in monastic clothing, that is, as one still under trial or already condemned. But those who invited him were unable to resolve the question. [211]

Further actions took place on the following day, when those who invited Ignatius to the council (for the third time) announced to him on behalf of the papal legates that he might come to the council in such attire as he himself would find most appropriate. Making use of this permission, Ignatius went to the council in full patriarchal vestments, accompanied by some bishops, priests, and a crowd of people. But on the road, near the Church of Gregory the Theologian, where in the middle of the street a cross had been set up on a marble pillar, Ignatius was met by the patrician Ioannis Kox, who, on behalf of the emperor, announced to him that he should come to the council in simple monastic clothing. Ignatius changed his clothes and, accompanied by Kox, went to the council; Ignatius’ retinue was forced to leave him. Upon Ignatius’ entrance into the session of the council, several clergymen and one layman, who until then had shown themselves to be adherents of Ignatius, showered him with reproaches for having, though deposed from his office, nevertheless dared to put on episcopal vestments. Finally, Ignatius appeared before the council in poor monastic clothing. [212]

As soon as Emperor Michael saw Ignatius, he showered him with abuse—so, at least, the Ignatian describers of the council assert. [213] To this abuse Ignatius is said to have boldly remarked that insults are, in any case, easier to endure than tortures, thereby alluding to the harsh measures which the government had taken against him after his deposition. The emperor ordered him to sit on a simple wooden bench. Then, after some negotiations, Ignatius was granted the right to address a few words to the papal legates. Ignatius asked the legates for what purpose they had come and were sitting at the council. Having received in reply that they had come to investigate his case and would proceed in accordance with ecclesiastical rules, Ignatius remarked to them: “If so, then first of all you ought to remove from here the adulterer [that is, Photius, who is called an adulterer in the sense that he became shepherd of the Church during the lifetime of his predecessor.—A. L.]; and if you do not do this, then you cannot be considered valid judges.” The legates supposedly found nothing to reply to this, but only pointed to the emperor and said: “Let this be according to the will of the sovereign.” [214]

Then, according to the accounts of the describers of the history of the council, some metropolitans dared to demand at the council that Ignatius be restored to the patriarchal throne. But to this they were told by the dignitaries present at the council: “Why, then, did you agree to the deposition of Ignatius?” The metropolitans gave an evasive answer. After this, according to the narrators, the dignitaries repeatedly addressed Ignatius with the demand that he declare his renunciation of the patriarchal throne; [215] but it is difficult to imagine for what purpose such a renunciation could have served, when in fact he had not been patriarch for four years already, and moreover, as was noted earlier, Ignatius in his time had given consent to the election of a new patriarch, and therefore had ceased to consider himself the legitimate patriarch.

Judging by the information in our documents, a certain interruption in the sessions of the council occurred, and they were resumed only after several days. The next session of the council opened with the decision to summon Ignatius again to the council. It is not entirely clear, or rather, not clarified in the sources, why exactly Ignatius was invited to the council. Did they not desire from Ignatius that he himself condemn his conduct after being deprived of the see, which was expressed in opposition to the governance of the Church by Photius, which, of course, threatened schism? In any case, at the council the question could in no way be raised: whether Photius should be patriarch or whether Ignatius should be restored to patriarchal dignity. But we continue the narrative, guided by our poor sources.

To the new demand to appear at the council, Ignatius replied with refusal, because, according to his words, the council and the legates were not observing ecclesiastical rules, since the legates not only had not broken communion with the usurper, that is, Photius, but ate and drank with him and even accepted gifts from him during their journey to Constantinople; such bribed judges, Ignatius remarked, he did not recognize; he would appeal to the pope and was ready to submit only to his judgment. The clerics surrounding Ignatius and devoted to him reasoned in the same way; here, for the encouragement of Ignatius, the activity of Pope Innocent I in defense of Chrysostom, unjustly deposed from his see, was recalled, as well as the fourth canon of the Council of Sardica, which required that a see not be considered vacant if its bishop appealed to the pope before his case had been examined in Rome. [216]

However, Ignatius did not dare to respond with refusal to further invitations to come to the council. He only considered it his duty to remark that the fathers of the council did not know ecclesiastical rules, since a bishop should be invited to a council through the mediation of two bishops, whereas they had sent for him one subdeacon and one mere layman. When he learned at the same time that witnesses were to be produced against him who were ready to swear that he, Ignatius, had been unlawfully elected and ordained, he began to say: “What kind of witnesses are these? Who will believe them? What canon commands that the emperor create witnesses? If I am not a bishop, then Michael is not an emperor either; there are no true bishops here [in the capital.—A. L.], and Photius himself is not a bishop [how Photius is involved here, whom Ignatius did not ordain, is unclear.—A. L.].” To this Ignatius allegedly added that Photius was not only not a shepherd, but was even outside communion with the Church. In the elevation of Photius to the patriarchate he found the important defect that Photius had become a bishop directly from the laity.

Without doubt, all these censures of the council, the bishops, and the emperor Ignatius could have expressed not at the council itself, where such insults would not have been tolerated, but before those persons who came from the council to invite Ignatius, as well as before the people who formed his retinue. When Ignatius arrived at the council, then, according to the accounts of the describers of the council, he was again compelled to give a renunciation of the patriarchal throne [217] (which, however, as we said above, could hardly have had any significance or meaning). Between this conciliar session, whose actual activity remains undefined because of the one-sidedness of the sources, and the subsequent session, ten days passed.

Then came the final session in the case of Ignatius. He was summoned to the council, and seventy-two witnesses were presented against him. Such a number of witnesses had, in its basis, certain canonical grounds. [218] The witnesses belonged to persons of different estates; among them were people of the lower class—artisans, fishmongers, and the like—but there were also senators and court officials. At the head of the witnesses from the higher estate were the patricians Leo the Critic and Theodotakios. All these witnesses swore and confirmed their oath by signature that Ignatius had been elevated to the patriarchate in an uncanonical manner. [219] The meaning of this accusation was that Ignatius had been elevated to the patriarchate by the will of Empress Theodora without the participation of a council, to which, according to the rules, belongs the right of electing bishops. [220]

On the basis of the testimony of these witnesses, the thirtieth Apostolic Canon was applied to Ignatius, according to which a bishop introduced into possession of a Church by secular authority is deposed and excommunicated. [221] The details are unknown. After this, Ignatius was declared condemned and deprived of patriarchal dignity. According to our sources, at the council itself there allegedly took place an act of defrocking Ignatius. Torn and dirty episcopal vestments, including the omophorion, were supposedly put on Ignatius; then a subdeacon named Procopius removed the episcopal vestment from him and afterwards exclaimed: “Axios!” (“Worthy”). The papal legates Rodoald and Zacharias and the members of the council supposedly repeated this word. [222] Thus occurred the condemnation of Ignatius according to the account of the Ignatian describers. [223]

At the beginning of the ninth century, as is known, the iconoclastic movement began again; at this time, we encounter several emperors who manifested themselves by iconoclasm, such as Leo the Armenian and Theophilus, as well as several patriarchs of Constantinople who expressed great sympathy for the iconoclastic emperors, such as Theodotus Kassiteras, Anthony, and John VII. As a result of this, even after the restoration of icon veneration under St. Theodora (842), there were in the Byzantine Church people who adhered to iconoclasm. The Council of 861 had to struggle with the remnants of iconoclasm; [224] but in what this activity of the council consisted in this case is unknown.

It is worthy of regret that the acts of the Council of 861 have not been preserved for us. [225]

By this council, seventeen canons were composed, which have canonical and guiding significance in the Greek Church and in our [Russian] Church. Let us make a brief survey of the more notable of these canons. [226] They may serve to supplement our scant information about the Council of 861, since most of them were prompted by the circumstances of the struggle between the two ecclesiastical parties—the Ignatians and the Photians. The majority of the canons have in view the proper ordering of monasteries and monastic life. This is explained by the fact that monasteries and monastic life in the Byzantine Church during the weak administration of Ignatius had become disordered and manifested striking deficiencies, which, moreover, had begun even before the patriarchate of Ignatius.

In view of this, Photius, according to the judgment of Fr. Gerasimus, “strove to limit the excessively great influence of monasticism, to cleanse this estate of the abuses that had crept into its way of life, and thus to place monastic life at a level corresponding to Orthodox conceptions of monasticism and its significance.” [227] Indeed, the canons composed at the Council of 861, without doubt under the special influence of Photius, contain many complaints about the decline and disorder of monastic life and set as their aim the healing of these evils.

The canons state that “so lofty a work as monasticism was found to be in neglect” (Canon 1); it is pointed out that “some assume the outward form of monastic life not in order to serve God in purity, but in order, by visible purity and blamelessness, to acquire for themselves the reputation of pious men and thereby obtain unhindered satisfaction of their desires” (Canon 2); it is observed that among monks there have appeared many who do not remain in one place but love to wander. “The evil one has devised many ways,” it is written in Canon 4, “to bring as much reproach as possible upon the monastic way of life; the time of the former heresy (iconoclasm) greatly assisted him in this, because monks oppressed by the heresy left their monasteries and moved to others, and some even to the dwellings of laymen. But what monastics then did for the sake of piety, having passed into an unreasonable custom, shows them worthy of mockery; for even now some of them leave their monasteries and, like an uncontrollable stream, moving and flowing now here, now there, deprive the monasteries of good order, introduce into them great disorder, disturb and destroy the beauty of obedience.”

Among the shortcomings requiring correction, the canons also indicate the excessively great but self-interested inclination of some bishops toward the establishment of new monasteries. Thus, in Canon 7 it is said: “We see that many episcopal estates [that is, episcopal residences with their financial and economic administration.—A. L.] fall into decline and are exposed to the danger of complete desolation, because their heads turn their care and concern, instead of toward the old ones, to the building of new monasteries, and, contriving to undermine the episcopal estates, they appropriate to themselves the revenues from these monasteries and concern themselves with the increase of the latter.” The council takes appropriate measures against the indicated disorders.

Among the canons concerning monastic life, Canon 4 especially attracts attention. By it, as we have seen, monks are forbidden to change their place of residence at will. Perhaps by this canon the council wished to prevent in the future the journeys to Rome of those monks who, being supporters of Ignatius, went to the Roman bishop to complain against Photius. Journeys of this kind undoubtedly occurred. [228] Such monks are apparently also alluded to in one of Photius’ letters, where mention is made of people who, “under the pretext of pilgrimage,” go to Rome, reach even the pope himself, but have “malicious intentions.”

But even more significant for clarifying the struggle of the Photians with the Ignatians are Canons 13, 14, and 15. They are directed against the “madness of schismatics” (mania ton shismaticon). In Canon 13 it is said: “Having sown in the Church of Christ the seeds of heretical tares and seeing that they are cut down at the root by the sword of the Spirit, the evil one has entered upon another path of intrigue and attempts to cleave the body of Christ by means of the madness of schismatics.” It is clear that the council here has in view those clerical persons who did not wish to recognize Photius as patriarch. The council determines the punishments to which presbyters, bishops, and metropolitans guilty of schismatic tendencies, who do not recognize and do not commemorate their spiritual superiors in divine services, will be subjected.

That the purpose of these canons is precisely as we have just indicated is evident from the same letter of Photius to which we have just referred. It is said there that besides the iconoclasts in Byzantium, “foxes have appeared, coming out of their dens to catch little birds—that is, schismatics, more dangerous than open enemies”; and Photius adds that they “have been pacified by the canons” composed at the Council of 861. [229]

Also noteworthy is Canon 17 of this council, which forbade henceforth the elevation of anyone directly from the lay state to episcopal dignity. “We have determined that henceforth no layman or monk is to be elevated to the height of the episcopate, but that each ordination to the episcopate is to take place only after prior testing in the performance of [lower.—A. L.] ecclesiastical offices.” As is known, Photius was ordained bishop directly from the laity. In six days, he passed through all the ecclesiastical offices preparatory to the episcopate. This, among other things, also displeased Pope Nicholas, as he expressed during Byzantium’s dealings with him over the deposition of Ignatius.

But Photius, as we know, upon ascending the Byzantine throne, wished to be guided by a conciliatory ecclesiastical policy, and therefore the Council of 861 enacted a canon that was meant to testify to the readiness of the East to remove occasions for scandal. [230] There is no need to dwell on the other canons of the council. Let us note one thing: all the canons are composed thoroughly and characteristically—this gives new reason to regret the loss of the acts of the council, upon which, as upon the canons, there undoubtedly lay the imprint of the mind of the principal figure at the council—Photius.

Pope Nicholas called the Council of 861 “robber-like,” that is, similar to the council of Dioscorus of Alexandria at Ephesus, [231] while the canonist Patriarch of Antioch, Balsamon, calls it an “Ecumenical Council.” [232] The first designation indicates that the council was in the highest degree displeasing to Pope Nicholas: it did not satisfy his ambitious desires. The second designation indicates the significance which Photius, who triumphed over his opponents at the Council of 861, subsequently enjoyed in the East.

 

NOTES

207. Why is this council called the First-Second, or Double, Council? One must think that this designation was formed after the model of the name of one of the earlier councils, which is known as the “Fifth-Sixth.” The ancients, however, did not clearly understand for what exact reason the Council of 861 received the above-mentioned name. Thus, the interpreter of ecclesiastical canons Zonaras says: “Those who read this title (double) are perplexed as to why the present council, being one, is called double. It is related that when the council assembled in the Church of the Holy Apostles and the Orthodox entered into discussions with the heterodox (!), the former proved stronger and wished to commit to writing what had been discussed; but the heretics did not allow the decisions to be written down, so as not to appear defeated and cut off from communion with the faithful, wherefore they caused such disorder and disturbance that they even drew swords and committed murder. Thus ended this first assembly, without receiving visible completion. Then, after some time, a second assembly again took place in the same church, and discussions on the same subjects began again; then what had been said concerning the dogmas was written down. For this reason, they say, the present council is called double.” The same opinion is repeated by Balsamon (Canons of Local Councils with Commentaries, Moscow, 1878, pp. 1688–1689, Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment).

But nothing of this sort is known from the history of the Council of 861; therefore, the reasoning of Zonaras and Balsamon must be признано unfounded. Obviously, these writers confused the circumstances of the activity of the Council of 861 with the circumstances under which the Seventh Ecumenical Council took place (what Zonaras says about the Double Council did, in fact, occur with the council just named). The learned canonist Hefele thinks that the council was so called because it was divided into two sections: one was devoted to deliberations about Ignatius, and the other about the iconoclasts, for which reason the acts of this council sent to Rome were contained in two separate volumes (Hefele, Op. cit., IV, pp. 230, 233–234). But this explanation is difficult to accept, because divisions of a council’s activity cannot themselves constitute separate councils, as is expressed by the designation “First-Second.”

More probable is the explanation of Hergenröther, who supposes that since before 861 there had been another council in Constantinople in 858, also in the Church of the Holy Apostles, to deliberate on the actions of Ignatius, who, having been deprived of his see, began to oppose the new patriarch Photius, the subsequent council (861) came to be regarded as a secondary council on the same matter, and from this arose its very name: First-Second, or Double (Hergenröther, Op. cit., vol. I, p. 438).

208. These acts were burned at the Council of Constantinople in 869, where, on the ecclesiastical side, the Ignatians were the leaders.

209. Pope Nicholas later asserted that his envoys had inclined to the side of Photius and acted against Ignatius because they had been removed and oppressed by the authorities in Byzantium (Nicolai, Epistola ad Photium // Mansi, vol. XV, p. 177). And Theognostus, a supporter of Ignatius, maintained that the legates had been bribed by Photius and had betrayed the righteous cause, that is, had acted in favor of Photius (Theognosti Libellus Ignatii ad Nicolaum Papam, vol. 105, col. 860). But this is evidently slander by dissatisfied people. The pope, thanks to the disturbances in Byzantium, hoped to obtain an expansion of his patriarchal jurisdiction (Hefele, Op. cit., vol. IV, p. 230).

210. Nicetas of Paphlagonia, Op. cit., col. 517. Ibid.

211. Nicetas of Paphlagonia, Op. cit., col. 517; Theognostus, Op. cit., col. 857.

212. Ibid. The action, however, was in keeping with the character of Michael.

213. Ibid. It turns out strangely that the Photians, according to the meaning of the writers on the council, are all silent, as though they could not open their mouths in their own defense. Obviously, the describers sought to obscure the activity of the Photian party at the council.

214. Theognostus, Op. cit., cols. 857, 860.

215. Theognostus, Op. cit., col. 860.

216. Theognostus, Op. cit., cols. 860–861.

217. According to the researches of Hergenröther, both in the East and in the West, there was sometimes practiced a custom according to which, in a trial against a bishop, it was considered necessary to have up to seventy-two witnesses. Hergenröther, Op. cit., vol. I, p. 426.

218. That indeed seventy-two witnesses from the lay estate were produced against Ignatius can hardly be doubted, since some of these witnesses later, at the Council of 869, were required to bring public repentance for the deed they had committed.

219. It must be said that, in fact, even the supporters of Ignatius, when speaking of his elevation to the patriarchate, emphasize in particular the will of Empress Theodora and the counsel of the monk Ioannikios (see: Nicetas of Paphlagonia, Op. cit., col. 501).

220. It is doubtful that the council made use of this canon against Ignatius; the canon had little relevance to the case. In general, it is evident that the accusation against Ignatius was brought by the secular authority, and that the witnesses, too, were obviously produced by the government. Probably the government itself, in order to establish peace in the state, demanded from the council the condemnation of Ignatius, which the council carried out in view of the insistent demands of secular authority—exclusively in the name of the common good.

221. The custom of defrocking existed in Byzantium; but whether on this occasion it took place so solemnly is very doubtful.

222. Nicetas of Paphlagonia, Op. cit., cols. 517, 520.—We have extracted from the accounts of Theognostus and Nicetas features that depict the activity of the council, but by no means can one guarantee that these are the actual features of the council. Events may have occurred in this way, but not entirely in this way. The acts of the Council of 861 were sent by the government to Pope Nicholas (Hefele, Op. cit., vol. IV, p. 234), but they would have been an indictment against Photius and the Byzantine Church if they had contained the same material as in Theognostus and Nicetas.

223. Nicetas of Paphlagonia, Op. cit., col. 516; Hergenröther, Op. cit., vol. I, p. 428.

224. Nicetas of Paphlagonia relates that when Photius was deprived of the patriarchate for the first time, Emperor Basil ordered that his books be confiscated, and seven sacks were filled with them. Among the manuscripts, incidentally, were the acts against Ignatius (861) with the following illustrations, which were allegedly made by Gregory Asvestos. In the first picture (a caricature), Ignatius was depicted being dragged and struck, with the inscription above him: “devil.” In the second, he is shown being spat upon in the face, and the inscription reads: “beginning of sin.” In the third, he appears cast down from the throne, and the inscription read: “son of perdition.” The fourth depicted him in chains and being driven out, with the inscription: “the avarice of Simon Magus.” The fifth portrayed him with an iron collar, and the inscription read: “one who exalted himself above God.” The sixth represented his condemnation, and the inscription was: “abomination of desolation.” The seventh, depicting Ignatius beheaded, bore the inscription: “antichrist” (Nicetas of Paphlagonia, Op. cit., cols. 540–541).

The question arises: does Nicetas really speak the truth, or does he amuse himself and his readers with the inventions of his imagination? It is impossible to suppose that such caricatures were drawn by Asvestos, that “man of God,” as Photius called him. But it seems possible to suppose something else, namely, that some lover of painting zealously undertook to paint caricatures of Ignatius and presented his work to Photius, wishing to please him. And Photius could have accepted the gift of his overly zealous, but perhaps sincere, admirer. One must remember that Byzantine miniature painting with an ecclesiastical character had its beginnings in the time of iconoclasm and often, with the aim of ridiculing the iconoclasts, chose them as the subject of its caricatural representations. For the same purpose, miniature painting could have served in the hands of some zealous artist of the Photian party.

225. These canons were published in Greek and Slavonic texts by the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment (Canons with Commentaries); in the Slavonic text by John, Bishop of Smolensk (Course of Jurisprudence); and in one Russian translation by the Kazan Academy (Acts of Nine Local Councils).

226. Gerasimus (Yared), hieromonk, Op. cit., p. 137.

227. Hergenröther, Op. cit., vol. I, p. 396.

228. Photius, Epistola ad Nicolaum Papam, PG, vol. 102, col. 617.

229. Photius, Epistola ad Nicolaum Papam, PG, vol. 102, col. 612.

230. As Photius expresses it regarding this canon in the above-cited letter to Nicholas. Ibid., col. 609.

231. Pope Nicholas, Epistola ad Clerum Constantinopolitanum // Mansi, vol. XV, p. 245.

232. Canons with Commentaries, p. 1689.