And yet the other side of his character is no less evident. His insatiable ambition, his determination to obtain and keep the patriarchal see, led him to the extreme of dishonesty. His claim was worthless. That Ignatius was the rightful patriarch as long as he lived, and Photius an intruder, cannot be denied by any one who does not conceive the Church as merely the slave of a civil government. And to keep this place Photius descended to the lowest depth of deceit. At the very time he was protesting his obedience to the pope he was dictating to the emperor insolent letters that denied all papal jurisdiction. He misrepresented the story of Ignatius's deposition with unblushing lies, and he at least connived at Ignatius's ill-treatment in banishment. He proclaimed openly his entire subservience to the State in the whole question of his intrusion. He stops at nothing in his war against the Latins. He heaps up accusations against them that he must have known were lies. His effrontery on occasions is almost incredible. For instance, as one more grievance against Rome, he never tires of inveighing against the fact that Pope Marinus I (882-84), John VIII's successor, was translated from another see, instead of being ordained from the Roman clergy. He describes this as an atrocious breach of canon law, quoting against it the first and second canons of Sardica; and at the same time he himself continually transferred bishops in his patriarchate. The Orthodox, who look upon him, rightly, as the great champion of their cause against Rome, have forgiven all his offences for the sake of this championship. They have canonized him, and on 6 Feb., when they keep his feast, their office overflows with his praise. He is the "far-shining radiant star of the church", the "most inspired guide of the Orthodox", "thrice blessed speaker for God", "wise and divine glory of the hierarchy, who broke the horns of Roman pride" ("Menologion" for 6 Feb., ed. Maltzew, I, 916 sq.). The Catholic remembers this extraordinary man with mixed feelings. We do not deny his eminent qualities and yet we certainly do not remember him as a thrice blessed speaker for God. One may perhaps sum up Photius by saying that he was a great man with one blot on his character---his insatiable and unscrupulous ambition. But that blot so covers his life that it eclipses everything else and makes him deserve our final judgment as one of the worst enemies the Church of Christ ever had, and the cause of the greatest calamity that ever befell her.

Acesta e Fotie? HIROTONIT INTR-O SAPTAMINA??? DE LA SIMPLU LAIC LA PATRIRH INTR-O SAPTAMINA? Nici nu e de mirare ca a rupt Biserica in doua! Putea sa fie invatatul invatatilor. El nu avea pregatirea si nici trairea sa fie patriarh. E ca si cum l-am pune pe Plesu in funcita de patriarh al Romaniei, doar pentru ca a citit biblioteci. Oricine e pus intr-o demnitate pe care nu o merita si pentru care nu e pregatit face lucruri gresite. A fost asa mereu si vedem asta si astazi la politicienii care nu se mai dau dusi din scaunele lor.

PS Si voi spuneti ca Biserica Catolica a facut tot felul de excese pentru putere...

Dar nu BO l-a pus pe Fotie Patriarh, ci Imparatul....

Pe de alta parte, exista si in Biserica Catolica papi care au fost laici inainte de inscaunare. Un exemplu este Sfantul Fabian (drag mie, in mod special, pentru ca fiul meu ii poarta numele), care a venit la Roma ca simplu laic, si s-a nimerit tocmai la adunarea in care trebuia ales un nou papă. Sfantul Duh s-a coborat asupra lui, in forma unui porumbel, din cate îmi aduc aminte, şi a fost ridicat la demnitatea de papă prin aclamaţiile populare. S-a dovedit apoi a fi un papă vrednic şi a fost şi ridicat la cinstea altarelor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Fabian

Si mai gresit...

Stati linistit. Au fost si papi care au fost pusi in functie de autoritatile civile, asa ca nu e o problema. Au fost si papi care si-au cumparat titlul cu bani. Doar cateva exemple: papa Vigiliu, papa Bonifaciu 8 - pa care Dante il aseaza in iad printre simoniaci, si papa Alexandru Borgia. Astea sunt doar 3 exemple, fiindca sunt foarte multi.

Singura diferenta e ca acesti papi nu sint luati ca puncte de reper si nici nu au fost declarati sfinti.

Pai si intre Fotie si acesti papi exista foarte multe diferente.

Cine vrea sa stie cum au stat lucrurile in istorie nu se situeaza de partea nimanui. Am auzit varianta catolicilor in care insemnele patriarhale au fost primite de la Papa asa ca vroiam sa aud si varianta ortodoxa. Nu vad cum asta m-ar situa de o parte sau de alta si mai ales nu vad cum faptul de a dori sa aflu varianta ortodoxa ar putea sa ma situeze de partea catolicilor. Este absurd.
Acum revenind, vad ca in acest mesaj ai dat in sfarsit un raspuns la intrebare: dupa cele spuse de tine, insemnele patriarhale nu au fost primite de la papa. Dar de la cine?
Si apropos de sinodul de la Ierusalim: tu ce ai inteles din sinod? De ce a fost nevoie de el? Asa o sa intelegi mai bine nevoia oamenilor de-a lungul istoriei de autoritate.
O zi minunata!

Dar exista si nevoia oamenilor de libertate.
Vezi legenda marelui inchizitor din romanul Fratii Karamazov de Dostoievski

Faptul ca au existat papi corupti sau imorali nu are legatura cu faptul ca imoralitatea sau coruptia e considerata corecta. Dumneavoastra considerati ca numirea lui Fotie ca si patriarh, de catre imparat, e un lucru corect. Asa cum am spus, e ca si cum Traian Basescu l-ar "unge" Patriarh al Romaniei pe Plesu.

Nu stiu care au fost greselile catoliclor de atunci, dar imi pare rau ca nici ei nu au reusit sa pastreze unitatea bisericii.