From: Subject: The Eighth Ecumenical Council and the Condemnation of the Filioque Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 09:19:49 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C6DFBA.95E6A670" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C6DFBA.95E6A670 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html =EF=BB=BF The Eighth Ecumenical Council and the = Condemnation of the Filioque var PUpage=3D"76001081"; var PUprop=3D"geocities"; =

Note: Your browser must have access to a Unic= ode=20 font for the Greek to be rendered properly.

Fr. George Dion. Dragas

The Eighth Ecumenical Council:
Constantinople IV (879/880)
and = the=20 Condemnation of the
Filioque Addition and Doctrine

This originally appeared in The Greek Orthodox = Theological=20 Review, Vol. 44, Nos. 1-4, 1999, pp. 357-369.
Typographical = errors have=20 been corrected.

Preamble

Did the Eighth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople = (879/880)=20 condemn the Filioque addition to the Ecumenical Creed as = canonically=20 unacceptable and theologically unsound? This is the question that this = paper=20 attempts to answer in light of recent discussions between Orthodox and = Lutherans=20 in America. It consists of three parts, a) clarifications concerning the = "Eighth=20 Ecumenical Council," b) the significance of the Horos of this = Council=20 for the Filioque controversy, and c) a fresh look at the = Horos=20 itself of this Council.

a) Clarifications concerning the Eighth Ecumenical = Council

As far as Ecumenical Councils go the Greek Orthodox East = and the=20 Latin West appear to be divided at the point where the Eighth Ecumenical = Council=20 is introduced. Both Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics accept the first = Seven=20 Ecumenical Councils.1 Beyond these Seven Councils, however, = the Roman=20 Catholics enumerate several others, which bring the total number to 21 = =E2=80=94 Vatican=20 II being the latest.2 The Orthodox Church does not enumerate = any more=20 beyond the Seven, although she accepts several Councils which occurred=20 afterwards and call themselves "Ecumenical" (as their minutes show). One = of them=20 is the so-called Eighth Ecumenical or Constantinople IV=20 (879-880).3

Roman Catholic scholars have repeatedly remarked that = the Orthodox=20 have not had =E2=80=94 and for that matter, could not have had =E2=80=94 = any further Ecumenical=20 Councils beyond the first Seven after their separation from the Roman = See in=20 1054. This is totally unjustified and misleading. Lack of enumeration = does not=20 imply lack of application. Orthodox conciliar history and relevant = conciliar=20 documents, clearly indicate the existence of several Ecumenical Councils = after=20 the first Seven, which carry on the conciliar life of the Church in = history in a=20 way which is much more rigorous than that of the Latin Church. These = Councils=20 [including that of Constantinople 879/880, the "Eighth Ecumenical" as it = is=20 called in the Tomos Charsa (=CE=A4=CF=8C=CE=BC=CE=BF=CF=82 = =CE=A7=CE=B1=CF=81=E1=BE=B6=CF=82) of Patriarch=20 Dositheos who first published its proceedings in 17054 and = also by=20 Metropolitan Nilus Rhodi whose text is cited in Mansi's = edition5]=20 have not been enumerated in the East because of Orthodox anticipation of = possible healing of the Schism of 1054, which was pursued by the = Orthodox up to=20 the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453. There are other = obvious=20 reasons that prevented enumeration, most of which relate to the = difficult years=20 that the Orthodox Church had to face after the capture of Constantinople = and the=20 dissolution of the Roman Empire that supported it. This, however, is not = a=20 matter that needs to be discussed here.

The case of the Eighth Ecumenical Council provides the = occasion=20 not only for clarifying this divergence, but also for indicating the = arbitrary=20 conciliar development of the Church of Rome after its separation from = the=20 Eastern Orthodox Churches. For Roman Catholics the Eighth Ecumenical = Council is=20 a Council that was held in Constantinople in 869/870 =E2=80=94 also = known as the=20 Ignatian Council, because it restored Ignatios to the Patriarchal throne = =E2=80=94 which=20 among other matters procured the condemnation of Ecumenical Patriarch=20 Photios.6 It is clearly confirmed by modern scholarship, = however,=20 that this Ignatian Council was rejected by another Constantinopolitan = Council=20 which was held exactly ten years later in 879/880. This Council is also = known as=20 the Photian Council, because it exonerated and restored to the Throne of = Constantinople St. Photios and his fellow Hierarchs and was signed by = both=20 Easterners and Westerners.7 How did it happen that Roman = Catholics=20 came to ignore this conciliar fact? Following Papadopoulos Kerameus, = Johan=20 Meijer =E2=80=94 author of a most thorough study of the = Constantinopolitan Council of=20 879/880 =E2=80=94 has pointed out that Roman Catholic canonists first = referred to their=20 Eighth Ecumenical Council (the Ignatian one) in the beginning of the = twelfth=20 century. In line with Dvornic and others, Meijer also explained that = this was=20 done deliberately because these canonists needed at that time canon 22 = of that=20 Council. In point of fact, however, they overlooked the fact that = "this=20 Council had been cancelled by another, the Photian Synod of 879-880 = =E2=80=94 the acts=20 of which were also kept in the pontifical archives."8 It = is=20 interesting to note that later on the Roman Catholics called this = Photian=20 Council "Conciliabulum Oecumenicum Pseudooctavum", thereby=20 acknowledging it implicitly as another Eighth Council rival to that of = their own=20 choice!9

The history of this Constantinopolitan Council, which = has left its=20 mark on the career of Ecumenical Patriarch Photios, one of the greatest=20 Patriarchs of the Great Church of Christ, has been thoroughly researched = by=20 modern historians. Dvornic's pioneering work has restored the basic=20 facts.10 Meijer in 1975,11 Phidas in = 199412 and=20 Siamakis in 199513 have refined these facts. There is no = doubt to=20 anyone who surveys this literature that the Roman Catholic position is=20 untenable. The Photian Council of 879/880 is that which: i) annulled the = Ignatian one (869/70), ii) enumerated the Seventh (787) adding it to the = previous Six, iii) restored unity to the Church of Constantinople itself = and to=20 the Churches of Old and New Rome, which had been shattered by the = arbitrary=20 interference of the popes of Rome in the life of the Eastern Church = especially=20 through the Ignatian Council, and iv) laid down the canonical and = theological=20 basis of the union of the Church in East and West through its=20 Horos.

b) The significance of the Horos of this Council for the = Filioque=20 controversy

It is with the theological basis of this Council that we = are=20 particularly concerned here. Did the Horos of faith of this = Council,=20 which was articulated at the sixth session in the presence of the King, = have any=20 bearings on the Filioque controversy? The Lutheran theologian = Dr. Bruce=20 Marshall has suggested that it did not. Indeed for him "the Filioque = as a=20 theological issue played virtually no role either in the breakdown of = communion=20 between Constantinople and Rome or in the restoration of communion; it = was only=20 much later that the theological issues surrounding the Filioque were = even=20 discussed between East and West."14 Furthermore, Dr. = Marshall=20 has claimed that it was only as a canonical issue that the = Filioque=20 played a role at that time, inasmuch as only its insertion into the = Creed was=20 considered to be unacceptable and constituted grounds for breaking = communion.=20 The implication of this argument, which is pursued by some Western = scholars, is=20 that contemporary discussions between Orthodox and Western Christians = should not=20 make the theological issue over the Filioque a criterion for = restoring=20 communion between them.

As a response to this thesis I want to recall the views = of=20 Orthodox scholars who have dealt with this Photian Council and more = generally=20 with the Councils of the 9th century which led to the overcoming of a = big crisis=20 in communion between East and West. By doing this I intend to convey = that from=20 an Orthodox point of view the distinction between what is = "canonical"=20 and what is "theological" is a juridical one and does not carry = any=20 real weight. Far from being helpful, it becomes an instrument for = perpetuating=20 an arbitrary situation that can only lead to unfruitful and precarious=20 agreements.

In 1974 the American Orthodox scholar Richard Haugh, in = a study of=20 the history of the Trinitarian controversy between East and West with = special=20 reference to the Filioque, stated that "the sixth session = of the=20 Council of 879/880 had enormous bearings on the Triadological=20 controversy."15 He defended this by citing and = discussing the=20 Horos of faith, which was formulated at that time.

Haugh examined the particular nuances of the = Horos of=20 this Council in the light of the subsequent writings of Photios relating = to the=20 Filioque doctrine16 =E2=80=94 especially his = Letter to the=20 Patriarch of Aquileia17 and his Mystagogy on the = Holy=20 Spirit,18 both of which took the Horos as a = powerful=20 rebuff against the Frankish doctrine of the Filioque which = formed the=20 theological background to the theological controversy between Orthodox = and=20 Westerners at that time. Had the Horos of 879/880 not had any=20 theological import on the Filioque then why does St. Photios = refer to=20 such an issue in these two documents? In no case, either before or after = the=20 Council of 879/880 did Photios reject the Filioque on just = canonical=20 grounds. Actually he explicitly stated that his grounds were both = biblical and=20 theological. They were biblical for they were based on the teaching of = St.=20 John's Gospel and on the explicit saying that the "Spirit proceeds from = the=20 Father" (full stop!). They were also theological in that the = Filioque=20 introduced two causes and two origins in the Trinity and thus utterly = destroyed=20 the monarchy of the Holy Trinity. Why would St. Photios write such a = full=20 theological critique as that of his Mystagogia only a few years = later=20 if his only concern were simply the preservation of the original wording = of the=20 Creed? Would it not have sufficed if he had simply referred to the = canonical=20 prohibition of the Horos of 879/880?

In 1975 Meijer published his thorough study of the = Photian Council=20 of 879/880 putting forward the thesis, as the title of his book stated, = that=20 this was "a successful Council of union." In part iii of this study, = entitled=20 "Reflection" he concluded: "the restoration of unity was = the reason=20 for the convocation of the Synod of 879-880. More precisely, perhaps, it = celebrated peace once more in the Church of God."19 But = he went=20 on to explain that the basis of this unity was theological. In his own = words,=20 "this unity means first of all unity in the same faith. Photios was = a strong=20 defender of the purity of doctrine" [the italics are Meijer's]. = Indeed,=20 "where orthodoxy was concerned, Photios was the true spokesman of = the=20 Byzantine Bishops."20 And Meijer goes on, "the West = also=20 attached great value to the purity of faith, but in fact concentrated = more on=20 the question of devotion to the Church of Rome. At the Synod of 879-880 = the=20 Fathers' care for purity of doctrine emerged in the Horos (the formula = of faith=20 of the Synod) which they proclaimed. This Horos cannot be understood as = a=20 dogmatic definition ... but rather as the true expression of the = ecclesiastical=20 feeling of the Synod ... expressed by the conciliar Creed of=20 Nicaea-Constantinople ... There is no doubt that Photios opposed the = addition of=20 the Filioque to the Creed on dogmatic grounds. In his famous encyclical = to the=20 oriental Patriarchs he complained about this addition by the Frankish=20 missionaries working in Bulgaria, because he considered it theologically = unacceptable. His whole argument is based on the conviction that this = addition=20 undermined the unity of God. We find the same reasoning in his = Mystagogia and in=20 his letter to the Archbishop of Aquileia."21 Photios = knew, of=20 course, that the Roman Church had not approved of the Frankish=20 Filioque, and hence she agreed on the conciliar refusal of = inserting it=20 into the Creed. He also knew, however, that the Franks were striving to=20 introduce the Filioque into the Creed on theological grounds = =E2=80=94 as they=20 eventually did. Thus Meijer concludes: "there is no doubt that the = Horos of=20 the Photian Synod officially disapproved of the [theological and = for that=20 matter canonical] use of the Filioque by the Frankish missionaries = in=20 Bulgaria [cf. the phrase he cites here from the Horos = =CF=84=E1=BF=87 =CE=B4=CE=B9=CE=B1=CE=BD=CE=BF=CE=AF=E1=BE=B3 = =CE=BA=CE=B1=E1=BD=B6 =CE=B3=CE=BB=CF=8E=CF=83=CF=83=E1=BF=83=20 =CF=83=CF=84=CE=AD=CE=B3=CE=BF=CE=BC=CE=B5=CE=BD, which is reminiscent = of St. Photios' Encyclical of 867] and was=20 not directed against the church of Rome which at that time did not use = the=20 addition either."22

In 1985 Dr. Constantine Siamakis stated in his extensive = introduction to the new edition of Patriarch Dositheos' = =CE=A4=CF=8C=CE=BC=CE=BF=CF=82 = =CE=A7=CE=B1=CF=81=E1=BE=B6=CF=82 the=20 same point of view. "At this Ecumenical Synod the Filioque was = condemned as=20 teaching and as addition into the Symbol of the = Faith."23 In his=20 description of the 6th session of the Council he stated: "The = Filioque is=20 condemned ...etc." and further on, "without mentioning the = Filioque,=20 the emperor asks for an Horos of the Synod and the synodical members = present at=20 this meeting propose the Horos of the first two Ecumenical Councils, = i.e. the=20 Symbol of the Faith, but without any addition and with the stipulation = that any=20 addition or subtraction or alteration in it should incur the anathema of = the=20 Church. This is accepted by the emperor who signs it and the synodical = members=20 who express their satisfaction."24 It is important to = note that=20 Siamakis attempted a critical investigation of the text of the Minutes = and=20 exposed the intention of various Western manuscripts (e.g. Cod. = Vaticanus=20 Graecus 1892 of the 16th century) and of the various Western editors of = the Acts=20 of this Council (e.g. Rader's edition of 1604) to hide the fact that the = Horos is in fact an implicit but clear condemnation of the = Frankish=20 Filioque.

More recently in 1994 Professor Phidas of Athens = University stated=20 the same point of view in his new and impressive manual of Church = History. In=20 his discussion of the Photian Council of 879/880 he wrote, that "the = antithesis between the Old and the New Rome was also connected with the=20 theological dispute over the "Filioque," which did not inhibit at that = time the=20 restoration of communion between Rome and Constantinople, since it had = not been=20 inserted into the Symbol of the Faith by the papal throne, but had = acquired at=20 that time a dogmatic character in the obvious tendency of = diversification=20 between East and West." Phidas also suggested, that "apparently = the=20 papal representatives may not have realized the scope of the suggestion = of=20 restating the traditional Creed in the Horos of the Council which was = implicitly=20 connected with the condemnation of the Filioque addition to this Creed, = which=20 had been already adopted in the West by the Franks ... Yet all the = participating=20 Bishops understood that this was meant to be a condemnation of the = Filioque=20 addition to the Creed."25 Furthermore Phidas determined = that the=20 acceptance of the Horos by Pope John VIII was due to the = influence of=20 Zachariah of Anagne, librarian of the Vatican, papal legate at the = Council and a=20 friend and sympathizer of St. Photios to whom the latter addressed an = epistle as=20 a vote of thanks.

The above references clearly indicate that contemporary = Orthodox=20 scholarly opinion is unanimous in understanding the Horos of = the=20 Photian Council of 879/880 as having a direct bearing on the = Filioque=20 controversy. It condemns the Filioque not only as an addition = to the=20 Creed but also as a doctrine. It is acknowledged, of course, that this=20 condemnation is implicit and not explicit in the = strong and=20 vehement condemnation in the Horos of any kind of addition to = the=20 Creed. That this implication is unavoidable is based both on the = historical=20 context of this Council =E2=80=94 the conflict between Photios and the = Frankish=20 theologians, which lies in the foreground and background to this = Council. To=20 restrict this implication to a mere "canonical issue" which has = no=20 theological bearing, is unwarranted by the text and the=20 dogmengeschichtlich context which entails Photios' opposition = to the=20 Frankish doctrine on the Filioque. This may become more apparent by = looking=20 afresh at the Horos itself.

c) a fresh look at the Horos itself of the Eighth = Ecumenical=20 Council

The following text is, to my knowledge, the first = complete=20 translation of the Horos of the Eighth Ecumenical Council which = appears=20 in both the minutes of the sixth and the seventh acts:26

"Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact the = venerable and=20 divine teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which has been = established=20 in the bosom of our mind, with unhesitating resolve and purity of faith, = as well=20 as the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy = disciples and=20 Apostles with an unwavering judgement, and indeed, those Seven holy and=20 ecumenical Synods which were directed by the inspiration of the one and = the same=20 Holy Spirit and effected the [Christian] preaching, and jointly guarding = with a=20 most honest and unshakeable resolve the canonical institutions = invulnerable and=20 unfalsified, we expel those who removed themselves from the Church, and = embrace=20 and regard worthy of receiving those of the same faith or teachers of = orthodoxy=20 to whom honor and sacred respect is due as they themselves ordered. = Thus, having=20 in mind and declaring all these things, we embrace with mind and = tongue (=CF=84=E1=BF=87=20 =CE=B4=CE=B9=CE=B1=CE=BD=CE=BF=CE=AF=E1=BE=B3 =CE=BA=CE=B1=E1=BD=B6 = =CE=B3=CE=BB=CF=8E=CF=83=CF=83=E1=BF=83) and declare to all people = with a loud voice the Horos=20 (Rule) of the most pure faith of the Christians which has come down to = us from=20 above through the Fathers, subtracting nothing, adding nothing, = falsifying=20 nothing; for subtraction and addition, when no heresy is stirred up by = the=20 ingenious fabrications of the evil one, introduces disapprobation of = those who=20 are exempt from blame and inexcusable assault on the Fathers. As for the = act of=20 changing with falsified words the Horoi (Rules, Boundaries) of the = Fathers is=20 much worse that the previous one. Therefore, this holy and ecumenical = Synod=20 embracing whole-heartedly and declaring with divine desire and = straightness of=20 mind, and establishing and erecting on it the firm edifice of salvation, = thus we=20 think and loudly proclaim this message to all:

"I believe in One God, Father Almighty, ... and in = One Lord=20 Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God... and in the Holy Spirit, = the Lord=20 ... who proceeds from the Father... [the whole Creed is cited = here]

Thus we think, in this confession of faith we were = we=20 baptized, through this one the word of truth proved that every heresy is = broken=20 to pieces and canceled out. We enroll as brothers and fathers and = coheirs of the=20 heavenly city those who think thus. If anyone, however, dares to rewrite = and=20 call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred = Symbol which=20 has been spread abroad from above by our blessed and holy Fathers even = as far as=20 ourselves, and to snatch the authority of the confession of those divine = men and=20 impose on it his own invented phrases = (=E1=BC=B0=CE=B4=CE=AF=CE=B1=CE=B9=CF=82 = =CE=B5=E1=BD=91=CF=81=CE=B5=CF=83=CE=B9=CE=BF=CE=BB=CE=BF=CE=B3=CE=AF=CE=B1= =CE=B9=CF=82) and put=20 this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return = from some=20 kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely=20 (=CE=BA=CE=B1=CF=84=CE=B1=CE=BA=CE=B9=CE=B2=CE=B4=CE=B7=CE=BB=CE=B5=E1=BF= =A6=CF=83=CE=B1=CE=B9 = =E1=BC=80=CF=80=CE=BF=CE=B8=CF=81=CE=B1=CF=83=CF=85=CE=BD=CE=B8=CE=B5=CE=AF= =CE=B7) the antiquity of this sacred and venerable=20 Horos (Rule) with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, = such a=20 person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, = which=20 has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete = defrocking if he=20 happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if = he=20 happens to be one of the lay people."

The solemnity and severity of this statement is quite = striking.=20 The reference to the Lord, the Apostles and the Fathers as guardians of = the true=20 faith clearly imply that what is at stake here is a theological issue. = The issue=20 is not just words or language but thought and mind as well. The whole=20 construction clearly implies that there is some serious problem in the = air=20 which, however, is not explicitly named. The focus is the Creed, which = is said=20 to be irreplaceable. It is totally unacceptable to replace it with = anything=20 else. It is worse, however, to tamper with it, to add or to subtract = from it.=20 The addition or subtraction is not merely a formal matter, but has to do = with=20 the substance of the faith into which one is baptized and on which = salvation in=20 the Church is established. To commit such a mistake can only mean = rejection of=20 the faith once delivered to the saints and therefore can only incur = expulsion=20 from the Church. What else could St. Photios have in mind but the=20 Filioque? Was there any other threat to the Creed at that = time?

The Filioque was the only problem, which he = himself above=20 every one else had detected and denounced earlier on when he became = fully aware=20 of its severity. This is also the creedal problem, which he will = pinpoint again=20 shortly after this Synod, and will produce his extensive treatise on it. = The=20 purpose of this Horos could not be anything else but a buffer = against=20 the coming storm, which he foresaw. The Frankish theologians had already = committed this error and were pressing for it with the Popes. Rome had = resisted=20 it, but for how long? He must have thought that an Ecumenical Council's=20 Horos, which included severe penalties on those who tampered = with the=20 ancient faith, would be respected and the danger would be averted. That = this was=20 not only the mind of Photios but of the whole Council becomes obvious in = the=20 reactions of the Bishops to the reading of the Horos.

We read in the minutes of the Sixth act that after = reading the=20 Horos the Bishops shouted:

"Thus we think, thus we believe, into this = confession were we=20 baptized and became worthy to enter the priestly orders. We regard, = therefore,=20 as enemies of God and of the truth those who think differently as = compared to=20 this. If one dares to rewrite another Symbol besides this one, or add to = it, or=20 subtract from it, or to remove anything from it, and to display the = audacity to=20 call it a Rule, he will be condemned and thrown out of the Christian = Confession.=20 For to subtract from, or to add to, the holy and consubstantial and = undivided=20 Trinity shows that the confession we have always had to this day is=20 imperfect. [In other words the problem which is implied but not = named has=20 to do with the Trinitarian doctrine]. It condemns the Apostolic = Tradition=20 and the doctrine of the Fathers. If one, then having come to such a = point of=20 mindlessness as to dare do what we have said above, and set forth = another Symbol=20 and call it a Rule, or to add to or subtract from the one which has been = handed=20 down to us by the first great, holy and Ecumenical Synod of Nicaea, let = him be=20 Anathema."27

The minutes go on to record the approbation of this = solemn=20 statement by the representatives of the other Patriarchates and finally = by the=20 Emperor himself. The Emperor's statement and signature leave no doubt of = the=20 seriousness of this theological Horos which was issued by an = ecumenical=20 Council of the Church:

"In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy = Spirit,=20 Basil Emperor in Christ, faithful king of the Romans, agreeing in every = way with=20 this holy and ecumenical Synod in confirmation and sealing of the holy = and=20 ecumenical Seventh Synod, in confirmation and sealing of Photios the = most holy=20 Patriarch of Constantinople and spiritual father of mine, and in = rejection of=20 all that was written or spoken against him, 1 have duly signed with my = own=20 hand."28

By way of epilogue it may be pointed out that the image = of St.=20 Photios that emerges from the acts of the Eighth Ecumenical Council is = one of=20 moderation, sensitivity and maturity. Confrontation is avoided but = without=20 compromising firmness in matters that relate to the faith. Generosity = towards=20 others is displayed and maturity permeates everything. This is indeed = the image,=20 which Prof. Henry Chadwick has recently resolved to = promote.29 This=20 is the authentic image of the East. The Photian Council of 879/880 is = indeed the=20 Eighth Ecumenical of the Catholic Church, Eastern and Western and = Orthodox. It=20 is a Council of Unity =E2=80=94 the last one before the storm = of the great=20 Schism =E2=80=94 based on the common Holy Tradition and especially on = the unadulterated=20 faith of the Ecumenical Creed.

Notes

  1. These Seven Ecumenical Councils are as follows: Nicaea (325),=20 Constantinople I (382), Ephesus (431/3), Chalcedon (451), = Constantinople II=20 (553), Constantinople III (680/1), Nicaea II (787).=20
  2. See the latest collection of Canons of Roman Catholic Ecumenical = Councils:=20 Norman R Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed = &=20 Ward, London, 1990.=20
  3. The best known later Orthodox Ecumenical Councils are those = connected with=20 St Gregory Palamas in the 14th century, whose Horoi are basic = texts=20 of Orthodox Dogmatics. The Council of Constantinople of 1484, after = the=20 capture of the City by the Turks, which condemned the decisions of the = unionist Synod of Ferrara-Florence (1437 9) also recognizes itself as = "A Great=20 Holy and Ecumenical Council." The whole issue of Ecumenical Councils, = beyond=20 the first eight of the first millennium, remains, to my mind, an open=20 question, which could and should be addressed today.=20
  4. See the 1985 reprint of the Thessalonian Publisher V. Regopoulos: = =CE=94=CE=BF=CF=83=CE=B9=CE=B8=CE=AD=CE=BF=CF=85=20 =CE=A0=CE=B1=CF=84=CF=81=CE=B9=CE=AC=CF=81=CF=87=CE=BF=CF=85 = =E1=BC=B9=CE=B5=CF=81=CE=BF=CF=83=CE=BF=CE=BB=CF=8D=CE=BC=CF=89=CE=BD, = =CE=A4=CF=8C=CE=BC=CE=BF=CF=82 = =CE=A7=CE=B1=CF=81=E1=BE=B6=CF=82, = =CE=95=E1=BC=B0=CF=83=CE=B1=CE=B3=CF=89=CE=B3=CE=AE, = =CE=A3=CF=87=CF=8C=CE=BB=CE=B9=CE=B1, = =E1=BC=98=CF=80=CE=B9=CE=BC=CE=AD=CE=BB=CE=B5=CE=B9=CE=B1=20 =CE=9A=CE=B5=CE=B9=CE=BC=CE=AD=CE=BD=CF=89=CE=BD = =CE=9A=CF=89=CE=BD=CF=83=CF=84=CE=B1=CE=BD=CF=84=CE=AF=CE=BD=CE=BF=CF=85 = =CE=A3=CE=B9=CE=B1=CE=BC=CE=AC=CE=BA=CE=B7, = =E1=BC=98=CE=BA=CE=B4=CF=8C=CF=83=CE=B5=CE=B9=CF=82 =CE=92=CE=B1=CF=83. = =CE=A1=CE=B7=CE=B3=CF=8C=CF=80=CE=BF=CF=85=CE=BB=CE=BF=CF=85, = =CE=98=CE=B5=CF=83=CF=83=CE=B1=CE=BB=CE=BF=CE=BD=CE=AF=CE=BA=CE=B7 1985. = According to Siamakis this edition was based on a Manuscript from the = Athonite=20 Monastery of Iveron which, unfortunately, is now lost (see op. = cit.=20 pp. 90ff).=20
  5. J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Concilorum nova et amplissima = Collectio,=20 tom. 17, cl. 371f. This edition is a reprint from J. Harduin's earlier = editions in 1703 and in 1767. This edition was based on a manuscript = that was=20 kept in the Vatican Library. Dr. Siamakis believes that it is probably = Ms=20 Vaticanus Graecus 1115 (15th century). On this and the later attempts = in the=20 West to falsify or edit these Minutes see further in Dr. Siamakis'=20 Introduction. op. cit. pp. 104ff.=20
  6. On the Eighth Ecumenical Council the Roman Catholic Hubert Jedin = writes:=20 "The Catholic Church recognizes the assembly of 869-70 as an = ecumenical=20 council. Not so the Greek Church. St Photios was rehabilitated and at = the=20 death of Ignatius he was once again raised to the patriarchal see. A = synod=20 assembled by him in 879-80 rejected the decisions of the previous = council. The=20 Greeks count this synod as the eighth ecumenical council, but a second = schism=20 was apparently avoided" (from his Ecumenical Councils of the = Catholic=20 Church: A Historical Outline, Herder: Freiburg, Nelson: = Edinburgh, London=20 1960, p. 58). Jedin is inaccurate on several counts, but this is = typical of=20 most Western writers. The Council was summoned by Emperor Basil and = was=20 attended by the legates of Pope John VIII and of all the Eastern = Patriarchs.=20 Jedin says that the schism was apparently avoided, but does not = explain that=20 this was the case because the Pope through his legates had accepted = not only=20 St. Photios' restoration, but also the condemnation of the previous=20 anti-Photian councils in Rome and in Constantinople. We should add = here that=20 the Minutes of the Ignatian Council (869/70), which have not survived = in the=20 original, are found in two edited versions: Mansi, vol. xvi: 16-208 = (Latin)=20 and xvi: 308-420 (Greek) and differ considerably from each other. On = this and=20 for a full description of the 10 Acts of these Minutes see Siamakis, = op.=20 cit. pp. 54-75. It is important to recall here that this Council = was most=20 irregular in its composition, since it included false legates from = Alexandria=20 and Jerusalem, more royal lay people than bishops (only 12) at the = start and=20 during the first two sessions. Eventually 130 bishops are mentioned in = the=20 Minutes but only 84 actually appear signing (op. cit. p. = 56f). Most=20 important irregularity, however, was the fact that the Minutes were = mutilated=20 at the most crucial points, especially the section of the condemnation = of the=20 Filioque (op. cit. p. 74)!=20
  7. The condemnation of the Roman Catholic Eighth Council (the = anti-Photian=20 Council of Constantinople of 869/70) by Pope John VIII is first given = in this=20 Pope's Letter to the Emperors Basil, Leo and Alexander. In = this=20 Letter which was read at the second session of the Photian Council of=20 Constantinople of 879/80 and is included in the second Act of the = Minutes,=20 Pope John VIII writes: "And first of all receive Photios the most = amazing=20 and most reverend High-Priest of God our Brother Patriarch and = co-celebrant=20 who is co-sharer, co-participant and inheritor of the communion which = is in=20 the Holy Church of the Romans... receive the man unpretentiously. No = one=20 should behave pretentiously [following] the unjust councils which were = made=20 against him. No one. as it seems right to many who behave like a herd = of cows,=20 should use the negative votes of the blessed Hierarchs who preceded = us.=20 Nicholas, I mean, and Hadrian as an excuse [to oppose him]; since they = did not=20 prove what had been cunningly concocted against him... Everything that = was=20 done against him has now ceased and been banished..." (The Latin = text is=20 this Ac primum quidem a nobis suscipi Photium praetantissimum ac=20 reverentissimum Dei Pontificem et Patriarcham, in fratrem nostrum et=20 comministrum, eundemque communionis cum sancta Romana ecclesia = participem,=20 consortem, et haeredem... Suscipite virum sine aliqua exrusatione. = Nemo=20 praetexat eas quae contra ipsum factae sunt innjustas synodos. Nemo, = ut=20 plerisque videtur imperitis ac rudibis, decessorum nostrorum beatorum=20 Pontificum, Nicolai inquam, et Hadriani, decreta culpet... Finita sunt = enim=20 omnia, repudiata omnia, quae adversus cum gesta sunt, infirma = irritaquae=20 reddita... Mansi vol xvii, cls. 400D & 401BC. For the Greek see = Dositheos=20 op. cit. p. 281f).

    A similar condemnation is found in = Pope=20 John VIII's Letter to Photios where he writes: "As for = the Synod=20 that was summoned against your Reverence we have annulled here and = have=20 completely banished, and have ejected [it from our archives], because = of the=20 other causes and because our blessed predecessor Pope Hadrian did not=20 subscribe to it..." (Latin text: Synodum vero, quae contra tuam=20 reverentiam ibidem est habita, rescidimus, damnavimus omnino, et = abjecimus:=20 tum ob alias causas, tum quo decessor noster beatus Papa Hadrianus in = ea non=20 subscripsit..." Mansi vol. xvii cl. 416E. For the Greek see Dositheos = op.=20 cit. p. 292).

    Finally in Pope John VIII's = Commonitorium=20 or Mandatum ch. 10, which was read by the papal legates at = the third=20 Session of the same Council, we find the following: "We [Pope John = VIII]=20 wish that it is declared before the Synod, that the Synod which took = place=20 against the aforementioned Patriarch Photios at the time of Hadrian, = the Most=20 holy Pope in Rome, and [the Synod] in Constantinople [869/70] should = be=20 ostracized from this present moment and be regarded as annulled and=20 groundless, and should not be co-enumerated with any other holy = Synods."=20 The minutes at this point add: "The Holy Synod responded: We have=20 denounced this by our actions and we eject it from the archives and=20 anathematize the so-called [Eighth] Synod, being united to Photios our = Most=20 Holy Patriarch. We also anathematize those who fail to eject what was = written=20 or said against him by the aforementioned by yourselves, the so-called = [Eighth] Synod." (Latin text: Caput 10. Volumus coram praesente = synodo=20 pomulgari ut synodus quae facta est contra praedictum patriarcham = Photium sub=20 Hadriano sanctissimo Papa in urbe Roma et Constantinopoli ex nunc sit = rejecta,=20 irrita, et sine robore; neque connumeretur cum altera sancta synodo. = Sancta=20 Synodus respondit: Nos rebus ispsis condemnavimus et abjecimus et=20 anathematizavimus dictam a vobis synodum, uniti Photio sanctissimo = nostro=20 Patriarchae: et eos qui non rejiciunt scripta dictave nostra cum in = hac dicta=20 a vobis synodo, anathematizamus. Mansi vol. xvii, cl. 472AB. See also = cls.=20 489/490E which repeats these points as accepted by the Synod. See also = Dositheos op. cit. p. 345 and p. 361). I have included these = texts=20 here because I repeatedly encounter comments in the works of Western = scholars,=20 especially Roman Catholics, who offer confusing and even disputed = information=20 about the unanimous Eastern and Western condemnation of the = anti-Photian=20 Council of 869/870.=20
  8. A Successful Council of Union: a theological analysis of the = Photian=20 Synod of 879-880, Thessalonica 1975, p.71.=20
  9. Mansi, op. cit., cl. 365.=20
  10. The Photian Schism, History and Legend, Cambridge 1948, = repr.=20 1970.=20
  11. op. cit.=20
  12. cf. his = =E1=BC=98=CE=BA=CE=BA=CE=BB=CE=B7=CF=83=CE=B9=CE=B1=CF=83=CF=84=CE=B9= =CE=BA=E1=BD=B4 =E1=BC=B9=CF=83=CF=84=CE=BF=CF=81=CE=AF=CE=B1, = =CF=84=CE=BF=CE=BC. =CE=92=E1=BF=BD =E1=BC=88=CF=80=E1=BD=B8 = =CF=84=E1=BD=B4=CE=BD = =CE=95=E1=BC=B0=CE=BA=CE=BF=CE=BD=CE=BF=CE=BC=CE=B1=CF=87=CE=AF=CE=B1 = =CE=BC=CE=AD=CF=87=CF=81=CE=B9=20 =CF=84=E1=BD=B4 = =CE=9C=CE=B5=CF=84=CE=B1=CF=81=CF=81=CF=8D=CE=B8=CE=BC=CE=B9=CF=83=CE=B7,= =E1=BC=88=CE=B8=E1=BF=86=CE=BD=CE=B1=CE=B9 1994, =CF=83=CF=83. 92-141.=20
  13. =CE=A4=CF=8C=CE=BC=CE=BF=CF=82 = =CE=A7=CE=B1=CF=81=E1=BE=B6=CF=82, op. cit. pp. 9-148.=20
  14. From Dr. Marshall's paper "Brief Observations on the Council of = 879-880=20 and the Filioque" which was presented to the Lutheran-Orthodox = Dialogue at St.=20 Olaf's College in February 21-24 1996.=20
  15. Cf. his book Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian=20 Controversy, Nordland Publishing Co, Belmont MA 1974.=20
  16. See here the brief but informative essay of Despina = Stratoudaki-White,=20 "Saint Photios and the Filioque Controversy," in the Patristic and = Byzantine Review, vol. 2:2-3 (1983), pp. 246-250. St. Photios = first wrote=20 on the problem of the Filioque in 864 in his Letter to = Boris-Michael=20 of the Bulgarians [PG 102:628-692. Critical edition by B. Laourdas = & L. C.=20 Westerink Photius Epistulae et Amphilochia, BSB B. G. Teubner = Verlagsgesellschaft 1983, pp. 2-39. For an English translation see = Despina=20 Stratoudaki-White and Joseph R. Berrigan Jr., The Patriarch and = the=20 Prince, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, Brookline Mass 1982]. He also = dealt=20 with it in his famous Encyclical Letter to the Eastern Patriarchs in = 867 [PG=20 102:721-741 and Laourdas-Westerink, op. cit., pp. 40-53.]. = Then=20 again, he wrote on it to the Metropolitan of Aquileia in 883 [PG = 102:793-821]=20 and finally in his great treatise, the Mystagogy which he = wrote in=20 885 [PG 102:263-392]. For a full bibliography on Photian studies = including=20 those relating to the Filioque controversy see my exhaustive=20 bibliography in the Athens reprint of Migne's PG 101, pp. = =CF=81=CE=BA=CE=B1=E1=BF=BD - =CF=83=CE=BB=CE=B6=E1=BF=BD.=20
  17. For the Text of this Letter, which was written in response to a = Letter=20 that was written to him by his addressee in 882, see footnote 16 above = and=20 also, I. Valettas, =CE=A6=CF=89=CF=84=CE=AF=CE=BF=CF=85 = =E1=BC=98=CF=80=CE=B9=CF=83=CF=84=CE=BF=CE=BB=CE=B1=CE=AF, London = 1864, pp. 165-81. For an=20 English translation of it see Despina Stratoudaki-White, "The Letter = of St.=20 Photios to the Metropolitan of Aquileia," Journal of Modern=20 Hellenism, 6 (1989) 191-206.=20
  18. This most famous of St. Photios' texts dealing with the problem of = the=20 Filioque was written only 4 years after the eighth Ecumenical = Council, a fact indicating that the issue was still looming great in = the=20 relations of East and West at that time. For the Greek text, apart = from that=20 published in PG 102 (see footnote 16 above), see also On the = Mystagogy of=20 the Holy Spirit by Saint Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, = translated=20 by the Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Studion Publishers Inc. 1983, = which=20 gives the Greek text with an English translation on opposite pages=20 (Translator: Ronald Wertz). Another English translation with a useful=20 introduction is that of Joseph P. Farrell, The Mystagogy of the = Holy=20 Spirit, Holy Cross Press, Brookline MA 1987.=20
  19. op. cit. p. 181.=20
  20. op. cit. p. 183.=20
  21. op. cit. p. 184.=20
  22. op. cit. p. 185.=20
  23. op. cit. p. 48.=20
  24. op. cit. p. 83.=20
  25. cf. op. cit. p. 133f.=20
  26. The text used for this translation is that of Dositheos, as = reedited with=20 corrections by Siamakis. Mansi's edition was also consulted.=20
  27. Siamakis, op. cit. pp. 379f. and Mansi, op. cit. = pp.=20 516f.=20
  28. Siamakis, op. cit. pp. 381 and Mansi, op. cit. = pp. 517.=20
  29. This remark is based on a recent exchange of letters between = Professor=20 Chadwick and myself.

 

 

Validated as Strict HTML 4.01 =E2=80=94 before = Geocities got hold of=20 it!

3D"Valid=20

3D1=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C6DFBA.95E6A670 Content-Type: application/octet-stream Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-html401 iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAFgAAAAfCAMAAABUFvrSAAAB0VBMVEUAAAAMCQQLCwsRDQYWEQgb FQoeGAwUFBQcHBwkHQ4sIxExJxM1KhUjIyMoKCg0MzI7OztCNBpHOBxNPR5OSz9XRSJbSCRjTyds VitvWCx1RzlyWy1+ZDFOTk5ST0tWUk1VVVVcXFxqXUplZWVra2tya2FwcHB7e3sAWpwIX58JYJ8O Y6ERZaIVaKQaa6Yebaghb6klcqopdawxea82fbE4frI+grRFhrZMi7pVkb1alL9dlsBkm8NoncRt ocZ0pcl8qsyWBAOZAACcCASIIBmdNiegDge3PB6mPiqFajWJbTaTdTqWeDyffz+6QiG/TCahclPA TifBUCjIXy/QbzfWej3Yfj+Rh2ujgkGui0WxjUa0gVi2kUi6lEq/mEyjkmuzn2e7pnLEnE7eikXO pFHQplPWq1XarlbesVjjlUrmm03poFDtqVTjtVrmuFzsvF70w2H5xmL+y2WDg4OXl5eYmJippZ61 rZisrKy0tLS/v7+Crs6FsNCLtNKQt9SWu9aYvNebvtifwdqjw9uox92ryd6yzeG20OPCwsLMzMzU 1NTA1ufG2ujN3+zT4+7d6fL/7Mbn5+fs7Ozl7vXp8fbu9Pj09PTy9/r1+Pv+/v7MzMx5jUMsAAAA m3RSTlP///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////AJVWkpgAAAABYktH RACIBR1IAAAACXBIWXMAAABIAAAASABGyWs+AAADJ0lEQVRIx+2W+08TQRDHp1ogQBGkgqmIgmKY SisvEUuAQusLKajxxUVEgQYqsdzdShSChGAD8kYpbW79a529bY+WyCMN+pPf5Ob22uzntt+dmS2s nbo+/xKCNX68frCTa/Tdtf/g3MBaOMJYNKzpYVPTbIIu+jSsMVWMcgaHwcmYC5QImHKxfHAw1gcQ ZgNw+RBwrNFPsxeaFgQk4XY3kpp8nCc/1a3zOSMLrI+MOGBgZJLAMMbyjgbvoJeI37FNgJdRqocb 1QBn1kvXU+CiUOg8KDS1HCYo5tsdlQo4jwTzFtyi6ME9ih3oi8eX0Jvks3CuvqzgzG4KbCoTPADF TtfRYD/OU2zFGEUv7nCjWQyry8iF6/WWx7rmygLrdnh7DHgDb3O+h0i+bmIL2W26UiC+MpLZm5cB Zv2VTIIrFGUsAxwIWFnRQC58Q2zgvAf9fO8mbtLWlfwpK0zwJMU8u8AI8JDwyLEPvhcQZAn20U/3 YStukN0bvBPd3Qnau0ywHlEZUyMaTZ2O6BSjUYFRaaxFSFYqj94PCKXAMfQZDbeW0R9HD73Gi9hq 8JmcKu9RQEqCE+hZwa6Eu2UJO8TzpgeX+Wou4Ccpbrry2siHFd6OMjM478LOw3uFrh3PTYO/IroN ygbEhPm8gs0HwQpARNy1SgCnyqrsUG69afCjHDyzuGnwFuJdUYJ4R6KWsXFXjpJJCVbzbBKsQFUf 9LNQyALrDwMPpvbX2xvIbEKNuGiW4AJf7DCtaF+V5LpVCa50VkjwRVCZyD3VAgte8EN6vb2Xsrpb F8bNEtymZPMnYh6MGbU/Bdcme4VydjoFLgSqDhtZkga/NHnBcckNPs1umyutIm40UYZ40Y2iFNcK ampLYEZ6XOQMOaBPM+tDY7bijBXrgwFLweCbA/3YmDdvPXRtd3u9nWIP12sKSmdTm1doE/U1+djF +mE4LLrDvhXWnhF4KoejqQKizAEsSk3YPkELJw2lyM8tbi5nXnhYo4uWqgyp4olkFfKLNPfUD9NX Ke7pn9LjQZP7F47/qal/9r9i7lh9eX9yvb6RBlefQBdOrqtXSk3wb5pxjmKbvWqoAAAAAElFTkSu QmCC ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C6DFBA.95E6A670 Content-Type: application/octet-stream Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://visit.geocities.yahoo.com/visit.gif?us1159107541 R0lGODlhAQABAOMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAQCEEQAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C6DFBA.95E6A670 Content-Type: application/octet-stream Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=76001081&t=1159107541&f=us-w83 R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAP///wAAACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C6DFBA.95E6A670 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/style.css BODY { MARGIN-LEFT: 15px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 15px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Unicode = MS,Palatino Linotype,Code2000,TITUS Cyberbit Basic,Athena Roman, Athena } H1 { MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: = 0px; TEXT-ALIGN: center } H2 { MARGIN-TOP: 8px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-ALIGN: center } H3 { MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-ALIGN: center } H4 { MARGIN-TOP: 4px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0em } H5 { MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 110%; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-ALIGN: = center; FONT-VARIANT: small-caps } P.norm { MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 90%; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 7px; TEXT-INDENT: 20px; = TEXT-ALIGN: justify } P.comment { FONT-SIZE: 80%; BACKGROUND: azure } P.clear { CLEAR: both; MARGIN-TOP: 0em; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0em } P.head { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 110%; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0em } P.menuhead { MARGIN-TOP: 2px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 100%; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 2px } P.menu { MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 80%; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 7px } P.nonind { FONT-SIZE: 90%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } P.nonind2 { MARGIN-TOP: 0em; FONT-SIZE: 90%; COLOR: #00e; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } P.nonind3 { MARGIN-TOP: -1em; FONT-SIZE: 90%; COLOR: #00e; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } P.smap { FONT-SIZE: 90%; TEXT-ALIGN: right } P.utf { FONT-SIZE: 90%; BACKGROUND: #ff0; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 3em; MARGIN-LEFT: 20%; = COLOR: #f00; MARGIN-RIGHT: 20%; TEXT-ALIGN: center } P.alert { FONT-SIZE: 90%; BACKGROUND: #ff0; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 3em; MARGIN-LEFT: 7%; = COLOR: #f00; MARGIN-RIGHT: 7%; TEXT-ALIGN: center } P.auth { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-ALIGN: center } P.intro { MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 80%; TEXT-ALIGN: center } P.cen { MARGIN-TOP: 0.5em; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0.5em; TEXT-ALIGN: = center } P.intre { MARGIN-TOP: 0.5em; FONT-SIZE: 90%; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0.2em } P.quo { MARGIN-TOP: -0.5em; FONT-SIZE: 80%; MARGIN-LEFT: 20%; MARGIN-RIGHT: = 20%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } P.quocont { FONT-SIZE: 80%; MARGIN: -0.5em 20% 0em; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } P.afterquo { MARGIN-TOP: 0em; FONT-SIZE: 90%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } P.middlequo { MARGIN-TOP: 0em; FONT-SIZE: 90%; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0.5em; TEXT-ALIGN: = justify } P.quoquo { MARGIN-TOP: -0.5em; FONT-SIZE: 80%; MARGIN-LEFT: 30%; MARGIN-RIGHT: = 30%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } P.quoquoquo { MARGIN-TOP: 1em; FONT-SIZE: 80%; MARGIN-LEFT: 20%; MARGIN-RIGHT: 20%; = TEXT-ALIGN: justify } P.quo2 { FONT-SIZE: 80%; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0em; TEXT-ALIGN: center } P.quo3 { MARGIN-TOP: -0.1em; FONT-SIZE: 70%; MARGIN-RIGHT: 10%; TEXT-ALIGN: = right } P.quocen { FONT-SIZE: 80%; TEXT-ALIGN: center } P.foot { MARGIN-TOP: 0.2em; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0em; TEXT-INDENT: 1.5em } .smcap { FONT-VARIANT: small-caps } .fnote { FONT-SIZE: 90%; BACKGROUND: #ddd } .comment { FONT-SIZE: 90%; BACKGROUND: #ff0; COLOR: #f00 } .blue { COLOR: #00e } #copyrt { MARGIN-TOP: 0em; FONT-SIZE: 70%; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0em; MARGIN-RIGHT: = -15px; TEXT-ALIGN: right } #home { FONT-SIZE: 100%; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 2em; TEXT-ALIGN: center } TABLE.menu { LEFT: 0px; WIDTH: 170px; POSITION: fixed; TOP: 0px } TABLE.center { MARGIN-TOP: 0.5em; MARGIN-LEFT: auto; MARGIN-RIGHT: auto } TABLE.centre { MARGIN-LEFT: 10%; MARGIN-RIGHT: 10% } TABLE.left { MARGIN-LEFT: auto; MARGIN-RIGHT: auto } TH { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 110% } TD { FONT-SIZE: 90% } TD.papaya { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 110%; BACKGROUND: papayawhip; COLOR: = blue; HEIGHT: 50px; TEXT-ALIGN: center } TD.verse { FONT-SIZE: 80%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: middle; TEXT-ALIGN: center } TD.year { FONT-SIZE: 90%; TEXT-ALIGN: right } TD.em { FONT-SIZE: 90%; FONT-STYLE: italic } A:link { BACKGROUND: mistyrose; COLOR: red } A:visited { COLOR: maroon } A:hover { BACKGROUND: yellow; COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: none } Q { quotes: "=91" "=92" "=93" "=94" } Q:unknown { content: open-quote } Q:unknown { content: close-quote } SUP { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; COLOR: #f00 } OL { MARGIN-TOP: 0em } OL.lcase { LIST-STYLE-TYPE: lower-alpha } OL.ucase { COLOR: #00e; LIST-STYLE-TYPE: upper-alpha } OL.lrom { LIST-STYLE-TYPE: lower-roman } LI { MARGIN-TOP: 0.5em; FONT-SIZE: 90% } ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C6DFBA.95E6A670 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://us.geocities.com/js_source/div.css .y_gcss_ovrtr_au { BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: = #000000 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; Z-INDEX: 2; VISIBILITY: visible; = PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; WIDTH: = 195px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; POSITION: = absolute; TOP: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff } .y_gcss_ovrtr_au_cbox { PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #cccccc 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; = PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; WIDTH: 175px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff } .y_gcss_ovrtr_msthd { BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; = Z-INDEX: 1; VISIBILITY: visible; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; WIDTH: = 195px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; POSITION: absolute; TOP: 0px; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff } .y_gcss_ovrtr_cntr { PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; FLOAT: right; VISIBILITY: = visible; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; WIDTH: 195px; PADDING-TOP: = 0px; TOP: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff } ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C6DFBA.95E6A670 Content-Type: application/octet-stream Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.geocities.com/js_source/pu5geo.js =0A= var PUisIE_NAV4 =3D false;=0A= if (parseFloat(navigator.appVersion) >=3D 4) {=0A= PUisIE_NAV4 =3D true;=0A= }=0A= =0A= var PUwinWidth=3D'740';=0A= var PUwinHeight=3D'300';=0A= =0A= var PUtimes =3D 1; /* number of times to show ad. if > times, then = redirect thru */=0A= var PUtheDomain =3D ".geocities.com";=0A= var PUexpiresIn =3D 4/24; /* days between shows of the ad */=0A= =0A= function PUsetCook(t,expIn) {=0A= var cook;=0A= var PUexDate;=0A= PUexDate =3D new Date;=0A= PUexDate.setTime(PUexDate.getTime() + expIn*24*60*60*1000);=0A= cook =3D "PU=3Dt=3D"+t+"; expires=3D" + PUexDate.toGMTString() +"; = domain=3D"+PUtheDomain + "; path=3D/";=0A= document.cookie =3D cook;=0A= }=0A= =0A= var PU_NO_COOKIES =3D 2;=0A= =0A= function PUgetCook(x) {=0A= var i,j,a,b,s,e,d,f;=0A= a =3D document.cookie;=0A= //if (a =3D=3D "") return PU_NO_COOKIES;=0A= s =3D a.indexOf(x + "=3D");=0A= if (s =3D=3D -1) return false;=0A= s +=3D x.length+1;=0A= e =3D a.indexOf(';',s);=0A= if (e =3D=3D -1) e =3D a.length;=0A= return a.substring(s,e);=0A= }=0A= =0A= /* check cookies - if cookies are off or if user saw it X times, then we = redirect thru */=0A= =0A= var PUd;=0A= var PUb=3DPUgetCook("PU");=0A= var PUoverTimes =3D 0;=0A= =0A= if (PUb =3D=3D PU_NO_COOKIES) {=0A= PUoverTimes =3D 1;=0A= } else {=0A= if (PUb !=3D false) {=0A= PUb =3D PUb.split('&');=0A= for (PUi=3D0; PUi PUtimes) {=0A= PUoverTimes =3D 1;=0A= } else {=0A= PUsetCook(PUd[1],PUexpiresIn);=0A= }=0A= } else {=0A= PUsetCook(1,PUexpiresIn);=0A= }=0A= }=0A= =0A= function PUlaunchPU(){=0A= var PUwin;=0A= var addIt =3D PUisIE_NAV4 ? ',top=3D5000,left=3D5000' : '';=0A= PUwin=3Dwindow.open('about:blank','PUwin', = 'width=3D'+PUwinWidth+',height=3D'+PUwinHeight+',location=3Dno,menubar=3D= no,titlebar=3Dno,status=3Dno,toolbar=3Dno,scrollbars=3Dyes,resizable=3Dno= '+addIt,true);=0A= PUwin.blur();=0A= return PUwin;=0A= }=0A= =0A= if (PUoverTimes < 1) {=0A= document.write('