[Magdalen] Greetings and question about the Photian Heresy

[Joseph Cirou]

Without getting into the details of the two soul theory. Your instinct is correct. It was more political than theological.  

Photius has been "rehabilitated" among Roman Catholics.  There was a Photian Schism on the succession of the Patriarchs of Constantinople at his time.  The "good guy" St Methodius (not the same as the member of the paris of Sts Cyril and Methodius) the bad was Photios.  Both these men are canonized orthodox saints. I don't know of a Byzantine Catholic church dedicated to St Photios, but I would not be surprised if his icon appears in group icons of the fathers of the Councils of his time.

As usual with many Eastern Issues there is the irenic version now accepted by most canonical Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics.  I am sure there remain some non canonical or even very conservative Orthodox who continue to revile the Roman Church over the issue.  One of the great church historians of a generation or two back is Steven Runcinman but, just to be safe I'd look up Archbishop Kallistos Ware's current take on the issue or someone more recent of that stature.

I haven't seen any diatribes against PHotios among the RC's later than the early 20th century and they were just repeating the old line.


Joe Cirou 
-----Original Message-----
>From: brad daly <bwdaly at gmail.com>
>Sent: Sep 20, 2015 1:36 PM
>To: magdalen at herberthouse.org
>Subject: [Magdalen] Greetings and question about the Photian Heresy
>
>Greetings old friends of the Magdalen list,
>
>I hope this message finds you all well.
>
>I popped in today because I was hoping one of the scholarly denizens of the
>pub might be able to help elucidate the Photian Schism for me a little bit.
>
>First, some background: I'm now in my sixth year of teaching at the Alabama
>Waldorf School. Without going into a lot of background on Waldorf
>education, I'll just say it's an alternative educational philosophy that
>conceives of and runs a school differently than mainstream education. It
>was founded by the Austrian mystic Rudolf Steiner and based upon his
>syncretic religion/philosophy of anthroposophy, though anthroposophy never
>explicitly appears in the curriculum. (That is, we don't teach
>Anthroposophy to the children the ways in which a Roman Catholic school,
>for example, would teach Christianity.) If you want to read more, the
>Wikipedia entry on Waldorf education is quite thorough and balanced.
>
>I'm generally pretty skeptical of anthroposophy, but I do love the school
>and the way it is run. I wish I'd been a Waldorf student when I was a kid.
>
>In an effort to be a good sport and a genuine desire for of anthroposophy,
>I've started attending a community anthroposophy class that the school is
>offering for parents/teachers/etc who don't have formal Waldorf training.
>
>Something that has come up is that Rudolf Steiner, founder of anthroposophy
>and Waldorf education, sees something about the Eighth Ecumenical Council
>(Constantinople, 869 CE) as a cataclysmic turning point in human history,
>specifically the 11th Canon of the council. Here's the text of the 11th
>Canon from the Fordham University website:
>
>*CANON 11*
>
>*Summary: The Old and New Testaments teach that man has but one rational
>and intellectual soul.*
>
>*Text. While the Old and New Testaments teach that man has one rational and
>intellectual soul, and this is the teaching also of all the fathers and
>doctors of the Church, some persons, nevertheless, blasphemously maintain
>that he has two souls. This holy and general council, therefore,
>anathematizes the authors and adherents of that false teaching. Anyone
>presuming to act contrary to the decision of this great council, shall be
>anathematized and cut off from the faith and society of Christians.*
>From what I can gather, Steiner believed that humans had both a "spirit"
>and a "soul," and that the council's anathematization of this idea "severed
>a tether to heaven," in the words of one of my colleagues, leading to the
>so-called "Dark Ages," from which humanity only began to emerge in the
>Renaissance.
>
>Now, I was educated in the tradition that rejects the idea of the Dark
>Ages, but I think the idea was very current in the historiography of
>Steiner's era. I've not yet even brought up the idea that there were no
>Dark Ages to the class because I wanted to do some more research on the
>Photian Schism and the theological implications behind it.
>
>I will say, from my readings, that the schism sounds more political than
>theological, and that the doctrine of a soul-spirit dichotomy seems like a
>very minor issue within the field of church history. The most recent book
>on the schism itself appears to be Dvornak's from 1948.
>
>The impression anthroposophists seem to have is that the dual soul doctrine
>was popular and somehow metaphysically true prior to the schism, and that
>the councils decision was a major turning point for humanity. I'm thinking
>that only anthroposophists seem to understand the story this way, perhaps
>because the only version of the story they've ever heard in Steiner's.
>
>So, old friends, does anyone here have any wisdom you'd like to share on
>the Photian Schism, the dual-soul doctrine, or Waldorf Education, either
>from personal experience or from reading and studying?
>
>--Brad
>
>-- 
>brad daly
>http://www.bradbrad.com
>http://www.flickr.com/bradbrad