Fourth Council Of Constantinople

The Fourth Council of Constantinople (869–870 AD), recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as the Eighth Ecumenical Council, occupies a specific and consequential position within the depth-psychology corpus primarily as the institutional moment at which the tripartite anthropology of spirit, soul, and body was legally collapsed into a dualism of rational mind and matter. James Hillman, the most prominent voice on this question, identified the Council — convened ostensibly to resolve the Photian controversy between Patriarch Photius and the Roman-backed Ignatius — as the site where ‘the soul lost its dominion,’ its Canon 11 anathematizing the teaching that the human being possesses two souls and affirming instead a single rational and intellectual soul. Cody Peterson extends Hillman’s reading with scholarly precision, situating the Council within a longer grammatical and philosophical history in which the thumotic, feeling dimension of the soul was progressively marginalized before Constantinople made its exclusion canonical law. Francis Dvornik’s exhaustive historical scholarship on the Photian Schism provides the indispensable ecclesiastical and canonical context, tracing debates over the Council’s oecumenical status across centuries of Eastern and Western Christian controversy. The tension between historical reconstruction and depth-psychological appropriation of the Council defines the central interpretive problem: whether 869–870 constitutes a theological rupture or merely codifies a suppression already long underway.

In the library 10 passages

This was the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870 AD), the eighth ecumenical council recognized by the Catholic Church… In Canon 11, the bishops anathematized those who taught that man has ‘two souls,’ affirming instead that the human being possesses ‘one rational and intellectual soul’

Peterson identifies Canon 11 of the Fourth Council of Constantinople as the formal ecclesiastical codification of the suppression of the feeling soul, completing a philosophical process already underway in Western thought.

Peterson, Cody, The Abolished Middle: Retrieving the Thumotic Soul from the Unconscious, 2026thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

at that Council in Constantinople the soul lost its dominion. Our anthropology, our idea of human nature, devolved from a tripartite cosmos of spirit, soul, and body (or matter), to a dualism of spirit (or mind) and body (or matter).

Hillman argues that the Council of 869 is the decisive institutional moment at which the soul was stripped of its independent ontological status, reducing human nature from a tripartite to a dualistic structure.

Hillman, James, Peaks and Vales: The Soul/Spirit Distinction as Basis for the Differences between Psychotherapy and Spiritual Discipline, 1975thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

The eighth synod is the fourth of Constantinople, held under the pontificate of Hadrian II and under the Emperor Basil, in the third year of his reign. The first session, as it was understood in the synod itself, was held in a.D. 870.

Dvornik quotes Cardinal Bellarmine’s classical formulation establishing the Fourth Council of Constantinople as the Eighth Ecumenical Council, providing the canonical historical record that grounds depth-psychological readings of the event.

Dvornik, Francis, The Photian Schism: History and Legend, 1948supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Acta Concilii Constantinopolitani IV (869-870). Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 1—208 (Versio Latina Anastasii Bibl.); Mansi, vol. xvi, cols. 300-413. (Versio Graeca.)

Dvornik’s bibliographic citation of the Acts of the Fourth Council of Constantinople establishes the primary source record on which all subsequent historical and interpretive accounts of the Council depend.

Dvornik, Francis, The Photian Schism: History and Legend, 1948supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

the Photian Council, we may take it that it was never officially classed among the oecumenical councils as the Eighth Council by the Church of Byzantium and that, officially, it never admitted more than seven ecumenical councils

Dvornik establishes that the Byzantine Church never formally acknowledged the Ignatian council of 869–870 as an ecumenical council, a fact that complicates Western depth-psychological readings that treat its canons as universal ecclesiastical authority.

Dvornik, Francis, The Photian Schism: History and Legend, 1948supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Paris, Lat. 42818, lib. 1, 47, fol. 18@=canon XXII of the Council of 869-70, lib. 1, 85, fol. 22@, Nicholas’ letter to Michael II]. Fol. 187, Incipis praefatio: canones generalium conciliorum, enumerates the first four councils.

Dvornik traces the canonical transmission of the Council of 869–870 through medieval canonical collections, documenting how its canons entered Western ecclesiastical law.

Dvornik, Francis, The Photian Schism: History and Legend, 1948supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

they failed to understand why the Eighth Council, which claimed to be oecumenical and supplied a good weapon against lay Investiture and was called ‘oecumenical’ even by Deusdedit in his quoted canons, did not figure among the oecumenical councils in the Pope’s profession of faith

Dvornik exposes the historiographic confusion through which the Eighth Council’s contested oecumenical status was gradually normalized in Western canon law through scribal interpolation rather than deliberate theological decision.

Dvornik, Francis, The Photian Schism: History and Legend, 1948supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

the councils of the ninth century are reported in the chapter ‘De synodis’ and the Photian synod is placed first on the list, contrary to chronological order

Dvornik notes the polemical distortion of conciliar chronology in certain historiographic traditions, reflecting how the competing councils of 869–870 and 879–880 were ideologically ranked rather than neutrally recorded.

Dvornik, Francis, The Photian Schism: History and Legend, 1948aside

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Since that time to this day the great Church of Constantinople has held that whatever was said and written against the saintly Patriarchs Photius and Ignatius be anathema.

Dvornik records the Greek Church’s repudiation of the anti-Photian acts of 869–870, illustrating the profound ecclesiastical division over the Council’s legitimacy that persisted across centuries.

Dvornik, Francis, The Photian Schism: History and Legend, 1948aside

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

whereas some anti-Latin Greeks called the Photian Council the eighth, others numbered neither the Ignatian nor the Photian Council among the oecumenicals, but made the Council of Florence the Eighth

Dvornik documents the multiple, competing numbering schemes applied to the Eighth Council, underscoring that its authority as a canonical touchstone was always contested rather than settled.

Dvornik, Francis, The Photian Schism: History and Legend, 1948aside

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Related terms