Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870)

The deposition of Ignatius in 858

The crisis begins under Emperor Michael III and his uncle Bardas. Ignatius, patriarch of Constantinople since 847, refuses to serve the court's political calculations and publicly reproaches Bardas for his moral conduct. He is then banished on 23 November 858^[4], and replaced by Photius, a brilliant senior official who was still a layman at the time of his selection.^[5]

The speed of Photius's elevation becomes one of the central grievances. In six days he passes through the ecclesiastical orders before being consecrated patriarch on 25 December 858 by Gregory Asbestas, himself in conflict with Ignatius. For Rome and the Ignatians, the problem is not the intelligence of Photius, unanimously recognized, but the occupation of a see whose living holder has not freely resigned.^[6]

Nicholas I decides for Ignatius

Photius and Michael III request Roman intervention. Pope Nicholas I sends two legates to investigate, but in 861 they accept the deposition of Ignatius under conditions Rome would later judge irregular. After examining the case, Nicholas holds a synod at the Lateran in 863, annuls his legates' action, recognizes Ignatius as the legitimate patriarch, and declares Photius excommunicated if he does not leave the see.^[7]

Photius responds by hardening the conflict. In 867, he convenes a synod that claims to depose Nicholas I and attacks several Latin usages: fasting on Saturdays, Lenten discipline, priestly celibacy, confirmation administered by priests, and the addition of the Filioque to the Creed.^[8]

Basil I changes the political situation

In that same year 867, Michael III is assassinated and Basil I the Macedonian takes power. The imperial change overturns the balance. Photius is removed from the patriarchal palace, Ignatius is recalled, and both the emperor and the restored patriarch ask Rome for a general council to settle the matter.^[9]

Pope Nicholas dies on 13 November 867. His successor, Adrian II, continues the Roman line: a Roman synod of June 869 again condemns Photius, then three legates — Donatus of Ostia, Stephen of Nepi, and the deacon Marinus — are sent to Constantinople to preside over the council in the pope's name.^[10]

Hagia Sophia, 5 October 869

The council opens on 5 October 869 in Hagia Sophia cathedral. The Latin acts preserved by Anastasius the Librarian describe the assembly as gathered in the "most famous church bearing the name of holy and great Wisdom".^[11]

The number of participants remains modest at first and never reaches the size of the great ancient councils. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that there were never more than 102 bishops present, besides the three Roman legates, with Ignatius, representatives of Antioch and Jerusalem, then toward the end representatives of Alexandria.^[12]

Ten sessions until 28 February 870

The council holds ten sessions. The first ones require the signing of a formula of reconciliation inspired by the Libellus Hormisdae, a sixth-century Roman text used to close the Acacian schism. The formula obliges signatories to follow the communion of the Apostolic See, which explains part of the Greek irritation against the assembly.^[13]

The following sessions examine documents, reconcile bishops who had sided with Photius, set aside several Photian prelates, and confront Photius himself. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Photius appears at the fifth session and says very little; at the seventh, he returns with Gregory Asbestas but still refuses to recognize Ignatius as the legitimate patriarch.^[14]

Ignatius, the restored patriarch

Ignatius represents the contested canonical continuity. Son of Emperor Michael I, he became a monk after the political upheavals of his childhood and rose to the patriarchate in 847. His resistance to Bardas in 857 makes him a politically troublesome patriarch, then a symbol of ecclesial freedom against the court.^[15]

His restoration by Basil and Rome does not mean all tensions disappear. After the council, the Bulgarian question will again set Rome and Constantinople against each other, and Ignatius will support Byzantine jurisdiction over Bulgaria, to Rome's great displeasure. The case thus shows one important point: Constantinople IV does not turn Ignatius into a mere Latin agent; it first settles the legitimacy of his see against a deposition judged violent.^[16]

Photius, an immense scholar and a contested patriarch

Photius is one of the most complex figures of the ninth-century Christian world. Even the harshest Catholic sources acknowledge his exceptional learning: grammar, rhetoric, philosophy, law, theology, biblical criticism, and immense literary culture. His Myriobiblon preserved fragments of ancient authors otherwise lost.^[17]

But this intellectual greatness does not settle the canonical question. For Rome, Photius remains installed on an occupied see, promoted too quickly, consecrated by an excommunicated bishop, and backed by an imperial power that had banished Ignatius. For the later Orthodox tradition, on the contrary, Photius will become the defender of Constantinople against Roman claims and against the Latin Filioque.^[18]

Adrian II and the Roman legates

Adrian II does not come to Constantinople in person. He acts through his legates, who preside over the assembly, present their mandate, and sign the decrees subject to pontifical confirmation. The procedure is typical of Eastern councils received by Rome: the emperor materially facilitates the meeting, but Roman authority constitutes the council as a universal ecclesial tribunal.^[19]

The Catholic list of councils retains this criterion: Constantinople IV is ecumenical not because of its number of bishops, relatively small, but because of the presidency of the legates, Eastern patriarchal participation, Roman confirmation, and the later reception of the Latin Church.^[20]

The condemnation of Photius

The most visible decision is the condemnation of Photius. The council renews against him the Roman excommunications, strips him of every patriarchal claim, and confirms Ignatius as the legitimate patriarch. Clerics ordained by Photius are deposed or reduced to a lesser communion according to the case.^[21]

The acts employ a very harsh language, typical of the ecclesiastical controversies of the time. The issue is not only a personality: it is whether a patriarch can be deposed by political pressure, replaced by a layman hastily promoted, and then oppose a local synod to the Roman decision that had itself been requested.^[22]

Tradition as the rule of faith

The first canon opens with an affirmation of method: the rules received from the apostles, the councils, and the Fathers must be kept as the norm of ecclesial life. The French Denzinger classifies this passage under the title "Tradition, rule for the faith".^[23]

"We declare that we observe and keep the rules handed down to the holy catholic and apostolic Church, both by the holy apostles and by the ecumenical and local councils of the orthodox, or even by any Father and doctor of the Church." — Constantinople IV, canon 1, Denzinger §§650-652^[24]

This canon is more than a pious introduction. It affirms that reforming a crisis is not done by inventing a new rule to win a present conflict, but by returning to the received canonical tradition. In the Photian case, this directly targets hasty promotions, improvised pseudo-synods, and depositions obtained by intimidation.

The veneration of holy images

Canon 3 takes up and extends Nicaea II. It asks that the image of Christ be venerated with an honor analogous to that given to the book of the holy Gospels, because the image teaches through colors what the book conveys through syllables.^[25]

"What is said in syllables, the expression that employs colors proclaims and enhances." — Constantinople IV, canon 3, Denzinger §654^[26]

This precision matters: in 869-870, Byzantine iconoclasm has been officially defeated since 843, but its traces remain sensitive enough for the council to confirm once more the teaching on images. Constantinople IV thus presents itself as the heir of Nicaea II, not as an isolated council of ecclesiastical policing.

The unity of the human soul

Canon 11 condemns a doctrine according to which man would have two souls. The text affirms, against this thesis, that the Old and New Testaments teach a single rational and intellectual soul in man, as the Fathers and doctors of the Church confess.^[27]

This condemnation seems far removed from Photius, but it shows that the assembly does not limit itself to the patriarchal dispute. It also addresses circulating doctrinal errors and places the council within a broader dogmatic continuity: defending the Church's order also means defending Christian anthropology.

Against promotions imposed by the powerful

Canon 12 condemns episcopal promotions obtained by the "trickery or tyranny of the powerful". The context explains the canon's force: the whole crisis stems from a deposition and a promotion backed by imperial power.^[28]

Canon 22 states the same logic positively: the promotion and consecration of bishops must take place through election and decision of the episcopal college, without direct intervention by a lay authority. A civil power may help if the Church invites it, but it must not impose the choice of patriarch, metropolitan, or bishop.^[29]

Rome's place in the patriarchal order

Canon 21 lists the patriarchates in the traditional order: first the pope of old Rome, then Constantinople, then Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. It forbids secular powers from driving a patriarch from his see and condemns insulting writings directed against the see of Peter, explicitly targeting Photius's recent example.^[30]

"In the first place to the most holy pope of old Rome, secondly to the patriarch of Constantinople, and then to the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem." — Constantinople IV, canon 21, Denzinger §661^[31]

The same canon specifies that a universal council may examine with respect a controversy touching the Roman Church, but must not rashly pronounce sentence against the pontiffs of old Rome. This is the direct answer to the Photian synod of 867, which had claimed to depose Nicholas I.^[32]

A Catholic reception

In the Catholic tradition, Constantinople IV enters the list of ecumenical councils as the eighth. The Catholic Encyclopedia explicitly presents it as the "Eighth General Council", and New Advent's summary of the general councils places it after Nicaea II, under Adrian II and Basil I, with 102 bishops, three papal legates, and the patriarchal representatives.^[33][34]

This reception will be repeated in later professions of faith. The profession prescribed by Urban VIII for the Eastern Churches mentions "the Fourth of Constantinople, eighth in order" and professes that Photius was justly condemned in it and Saint Ignatius restored as patriarch.^[35]

An opposing Orthodox reception

Eastern reception follows a different memory. After the death of Ignatius on 23 October 877, Photius returns to the see of Constantinople. A synod held in 879-880 at Hagia Sophia rehabilitates him, annuls the council of 869-870 in Byzantine practice, and becomes, for many Orthodox, the true Fourth Council of Constantinople.^[36][37]

This divergence explains why the council is a sensitive subject in Catholic-Orthodox dialogue. It is not only about Photius, but about how a council becomes ecumenical: through Roman confirmation, in the Catholic logic; through the reception of the Eastern Church, in the Orthodox argument against 869-870.

The Bulgarian question

The last session takes place in the presence of the emperor, his son Constantine, the Bulgarian king Michael, and Western ambassadors. The Bulgarian question arises immediately after the council: does newly evangelized Bulgaria fall under Rome or Constantinople? The Byzantine answer assigns it to Constantinople, which Rome regards as the unjust loss of a territory formerly linked to Roman Illyria.^[38]

This point shows that the council does not remove East-West tensions. At the very moment Ignatius is restored thanks to Rome, Constantinople gains Bulgaria. Communion is reestablished, but the balance between Roman jurisdiction, Constantinopolitan prestige, and imperial policy remains fragile.

A council on the Church's freedom

Constantinople IV recalls that a Church governed by the court soon ceases to discern freely. The deposition of Ignatius, the hasty promotion of Photius, and the contradictory synods show what happens when imperial authority becomes the practical arbiter of the patriarchate.^[39]

Its answer is not a modern theory of political separation, but a precise ecclesial discipline: bishops must be elected according to the canons, patriarchs must not be driven out by civil powers, and councils must judge according to received tradition, not momentary interest.

A mirror of Catholic-Orthodox tensions

The council also remains a mirror of the fracture between Catholics and Orthodox. For Catholics, it shows that Rome can judge an Eastern patriarchal crisis when the Church's unity is threatened. For the Orthodox, the later rehabilitation of Photius and the synod of 879-880 show on the contrary that 869-870 was not received as an ecumenical council by the East.^[40]

The best reading is therefore not to conceal the disagreement. Constantinople IV must be presented precisely: an ecumenical council in the Catholic tradition, rejected in the Orthodox tradition, tied to the Photian crisis, Roman primacy, patriarchal elections, and Bulgarian jurisdiction.

A lesson in historical prudence

Photius is neither simply the dark figure described by some Latin sources, nor simply the champion saint celebrated by the East. He is an immense scholar, a patriarch politically imposed in 858, a formidable adversary of Rome, then a patriarch restored after the death of Ignatius. This complexity obliges us to distinguish canonical judgment, confessional memory, and a person's intellectual worth.^[41]

For a Catholic reader, Constantinople IV nevertheless remains clear on its center: ecclesial communion cannot be rebuilt through forced depositions, irregular promotions, and synods fabricated to cover a political decision. The council answers with a return to the canons, to tradition, and to the judgment of the universal Church.

• Read Nicaea II: Constantinople IV still confirms the veneration of holy images.
• Read Constantinople III: another Constantinopolitan council received in common by East and West.
• Remember the distinction: 869-870 is Constantinople IV in the Catholic list; 879-880 is often called Constantinople IV in Orthodox memory.
• Note the central theme: the Church's canonical freedom against promotions imposed by political power.