Before presenting a translation of Pope John VIII’s 350th letter,(1) a few words on its disputed authenticity are necessary. To put it bluntly, it is widely (but not universally) considered a forgery. Perhaps the most charitable assessment of the letter by one of its detractors is by Dvornik, who admits it is “not impossible” for it to be authentic, but he clearly considers it either a contrivance or highly altered.(2) There is good reason to revisit his conclusion and the skeptical assessments of others. The authenticity of the letter is most probable.

First, Dvornik’s evaluations that “whatever is said in the document roughly corresponds to fact, barring a few expressions that could have never been written by John VIII” and “it is not absolutely impossible, but most unlikely, John VIII should have written to Photius on the addition to the symbol”(3) reveal that he is aware that there is nothing historically wrong with the letter. After all, John VIII in Letter 293 in vindicating Saint Methodius against his detractors revealed that the latter had the same Creed as Rome,(4) obviously without the Filioque.(5)  Dvornik even dismisses claims that Letter 350’s late appearance in the manuscript record is proof against its authenticity, explaining “the fact that the existence of this letter was never referred to by Photius or by any of the Greek polemicists before the fourteenth century is not so extraordinary.”(6) 

Accepting its historicity, Dvornik’s resistance to its genuineness is based squarely upon that it supposedly does not sound like it is written by John VIII–a subjective criteria to say the least. Yet, he lists only one example (presumably the strongest one he is aware of) why this is the case: “the writer [of Letter 350] compares the initiators of the innovation to Judas” something that (he alleges) “certainly did not issue from the Pontifical Chancery.”(7) Dvornik’s assessment proves to be insufficient. Not only does John VIII cite Judas in about ten of his letters, Letter 149 (an obscure privilege to a monastery that a Greek forger would have had no knowledge of) contains a similar invocation of Judas complete with a parallelism shared with Letter 350. Letter 149 states:

Hence, even Judas, who defrauded the money intended for the Church’s use—that is, for the poor, whom the Church ought to feed—was distributing it by the command of the Savior, whose position the bishops hold, and he became not only a thief, but also a robber and a sacrilegious person. For such are those who seize, defraud, or take away the Church’s resources.(8)

As one can see, Judas indeed bears mention in John VIII’s authentic correspondence as a sort of insult to his opposition. Additionally, as stated previously, the insult’s parallelism (“not only a thief, but also a robber and sacrilegious person”) is mirrored in Letter 350 (“not because they delivered the Lord’s body to death, but because, by schism, they separated and divided among themselves the faithful of God”).(9) This rhetorical flourish, where John conveys an increased emphasis on evil, is an authentic touch. Whoever wrote Letter 350 shared John VIII’s idiom.

Second, an obscure fragment of John VIII (Letter 369) likewise exhibits a similar parallelism:

If you receive any sacraments from those whom we had excommunicated [I.e. the Greeks], it is evident that you have committed idolatry, not as Catholics, but as schismatics.(10)

While this parallelism is not as strong as that of Letter 149, it is apparent enough. Further, it demonstrates that John VIII was liable to employ similar rhetoric in diplomatic correspondence. This corroborates further the authenticity of Letter 350.

Third, internal details in the letter are inconsistent with forgery. For example, John VIII’s recommendation in the letter contradicts the horos of Constantinople IV in that it does not anathematize and excommunicate those who alter the Creed by using the Filioque. Instead, it admonishes Photius to not “be separated from the rest of the body of the Church, but rather endure with us the trials of faith with prudence and patience, and recall those who have turned from the truth so that they may embrace it.” In other words, one should be patient and correct the Carolingian error with admonishment. 

A Greek polemicist would not include a detail in a forgery that puts into contradiction the Pope whose support for the Council of Constantinople IV he wanted to invent.(11) As Dvornik points out, “Greeks always preferred conciliar decisions, naturally with papal attestations, in support of doctrines and standards that were common to the whole Church.”(12) He lists this as the very reason why Letter 350 potentially was not cited by Greek polemicists sooner. In fact, this contradiction may be precisely why they did not cite it for centuries as it in some respects counterproductive to their purposes. Further, the motive for the forger to caution restraint instead of condemn more strenuously those who confess the Filioque cannot be located in the post-schism polemical debates on the question. This additionally makes it unlikely Letter 350 is a fabrication. 

Concerning dating, there are two possibilities. The first is that Letter 350 was written some time after John VIII heard the decisions of Constantinople IV. Just as John did not fully accept the first canon of the council,(13) if this letter is to be dated after the council it would show he also did not explicitly heed its horos (or had an extremely economic interpretation of it). The weakness of this theory is that there is no historical context that demands it. 

The second possibility, which is more likely, is that Letter 350 is dated sometime close to the composition of Letter 293 (dated June 880 AD) and the controversy surrounding Methodius. It makes sense as the Council of Constantinople IV was not yet received in Rome and its conclusions (at least officially) unknown to John VIII until sometime after August 880 AD.(14) Particularly before August, John VIII was intent upon securing positive relations with Constantinople, which could be potentially soured by both his demand for jurisdiction in Bulgaria and what could have been the appearance he was persecuting Methodius for confessing the original Constantinopolitan Creed without the Filioque. 

Additionally, Letter 350 makes the specific claim that those who were espousing the Filioque were schismatics and Letter 293 describes Methodius’ detractors as “contentious or disobedient, causing scandal or schism.”(15) The details of the latter fit not some broad condemnation of Western theology as contrived by a later Greek forger, but a specific group who in 880 were both viewed as cast out of the Church by Rome and plausibly close enough to Constantinople for their views to merit immediate concern. This makes sense of the otherwise inexplicable detail in Letter 350 of there simultaneously being schismatics akin to Judas (those disobedient to Methodius in Moravia) while at the same time others who share the former’s errant Creed but are yet considered “the rest of the body of the Church.” John was condemning those who he and Methodius sided against in Moravia, but not the plethora of errant Carolingian clergy in Western Europe with whom he had a more cautious approach.

Such circumstances seem to demand that John VIII would have written some sort of conciliatory letter to Photius on the matter. With such a dating, the letter came too late to be read during the council. Further, due to its more tolerant treatment of those confessing the Filioque, it likely did not help polemically at the time either. Nevertheless, it did offer Photius a personal assurance that Rome and Constantinople were fundamentally in agreement on the question of the Holy Spirit’s procession, as John in Letter 350 calls the addition a “blasphemy.” A few years later, Photius spoke of John VIII endearingly as “my John” because he “accepted the Symbol of the Faith of the Catholic Church of God….He both confirmed and subscribed to it with wondrous and notable sayings, with sacred tongue and hand through those very illustrious and admirable men aforementioned [i.e. the legates].”(16) Likely, what Photius had in mind when invoking John’s confirmation by “hand” that he rejected the Filioque was John’s letters confirming the eighth council. However, Letter 350 was likely provided to Photius through one of the Roman legates that same year and could have been interpreted as a further confirmation, at least in spirit. After all, none of John VIII’s letters as read to the council or confirming it afterwards mention the Creed. Only Letter 350 does.

In conclusion, all the historical and textual details relevant to Letter 350 favor its authenticity and merit a complete overturning of the previous contention that the said letter is a forgery.  

The Full Text of Letter 350:

John, bishop and servant of the servants of God, to Photius, most reverend and Catholic brother, Patriarch of Constantinople: Grace from above granting works of salvation!

We are not unaware that some among you, who are little concerned with peace, speak ill of our Church and of us personally, disregarding the truth. And matters have progressed to the point that your fraternity is close to thinking poorly of us and of those subject to us. Indeed, they have taken advantage of what I would affirm to be a fitting opportunity for their purpose, but the truth itself remains unadulterated and unstained, as shall become evident in the discourse that follows, and God Himself will confirm this to us by His testimony from above. Like those who adulterate wine by mixing it with water, they introduce certain falsehoods of their own invention and fabrication. For it is necessary that the devil, who from the beginning was the creator of evil and set enmity between us and God, and later separated our first parent from the love of God and made him hostile to his Creator, should even now have some ministers of his own, and drive these individuals to stir up some scandal between the Churches.

But I, directing my gaze rather to God, the author and bestower of peace, who surrendered enmity even unto death on the cross, strive with all my might to silence the mouths of those who delight in evil. And for this reason, even before your fraternity indicates anything to me, I have decided to make these matters clear to you, so that, being well-informed about our situation, you may lend less of an ear to those who seek to provoke conflict and offend; instead, you should reject and disown them, and ensure that others do not believe their words.

Your fraternity also knows that when the one sent by you recently came to us and consulted us on the holy symbol, he found that we have preserved it unshaken, just as it was handed down to us from the beginning, without adding or removing anything, as we know well that a grave condemnation awaits those who dare to do such things. Therefore, we inform your reverence once again that regarding this addition in the symbol (from the Son, specifically),(17) not only do we not proclaim it, but we also condemn those who, in their madness, first dared to proclaim it as transgressors of the divine word, as those who subvert the theology of our Lord Christ, and as enemies of the holy Fathers who, meeting in council, delivered the holy symbol to us. We place these transgressors alongside Judas, not because they delivered the Lord’s body to death, but because, by schism, they separated and divided among themselves the faithful of God, who are His members, casting them, and themselves even more so, headlong into eternal fire, as did that aforementioned Judas, the unworthy disciple of Christ, who hung himself.

We believe that your reverence, endowed as you are with wisdom and learning, rightly knows that while we strive with all our strength to ensure that the rest of our bishops share this understanding with us, this task causes us considerable distress. Truly, no one could easily or quickly change so grave a matter, even if it had arisen recently and had not been established many years! For this reason, we have judged it fitting and reasonable that no one should be compelled by force from you to abandon that addition, which he himself has added to the symbol, but rather that such people should be admonished with gentleness and gradually recalled from blasphemy.(18) As the chief of the apostles, Peter, says, “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it, not by constraint but willingly…neither as lording it over the clergy but being made a pattern of [an example for] the flock” (1 Peter 5:2-3). Therefore, those who accuse us, as though we hold such matters in error, do not accuse us justly.

Your fraternity should not suffer any offense against us, nor be separated from the rest of the body of the Church, but rather endure with us the trials of faith with prudence and patience, and recall those who have turned from the truth so that they may embrace it, so that you may receive the same reward with us. Farewell in the Lord, most reverend and Catholic brother.

Endnotes:

  1. PL 126:944-6. Letter 350 survives as a translation of the Greek into Latin. The original Latin is lost.
  2. Francis Dvornik, The Photian Schism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 198.
  3. Ibid.
  4. PL 126:904-5.
  5. Francis Dvornik, Byzantine Missions Among the Slavs (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1970), 164-5.
  6. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, 198.
  7. Ibid.
  8. PL 126:793.
  9. Quoted in Letter 350, originally found in PL 126:945.
  10. PL 126:959.
  11. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, 198.
  12. Richard Haugh, Photius and the Carolingians (Belmont, MA : Nordland Pub. Co., 1975), 130.
  13. Patrick Truglia, The Rise and Fall of the Papacy (Uncut Mountain Press, 2023), 347-8.
  14. PL 126:911. Letter 296 is written by Pope John VIII to the Emperor Basil and in it he communicates he accepts Constantinople IV but expresses that he may not accept some of the diplomatic changes made by his legates. The importance of this to the topic at hand is that it demonstrates that months after Letter 293, John VIII claimed not to have complete knowledge of everything agreed to during the council, which would presumably include its horos. Hence, this helps date Letter 350 some time before Letter 296 as it must have been written before Letter 297 (PL 126:911-2). That letter was also addressed to Photius, but only discusses details identical to Letter 296 and not Letter 350. This places Letter 350 close to the time of composition of Letter 293. As for John VIII’s acceptance of Constantinople IV as an ecumenical council, this certainly occurred. Medieval canon law in the West, particularly Caesaraugustana’s and Ivo of Chartes’ canons, condemned Constantinople 869-70 and cited Constantinople IV’s canons. The former even called “Constantinople IV” by its namesake (quinta synodus Constantinopolitana ccclxxxiii patrum sub Johanne papa). Gratian, whose canon law was essentially official in Rome as late as 1917, explicitly calls Constantnople IV the “ninth [ecumenical] synod.” See Dvornik, The Photian Schism, 334-5 and 340-1.The idea that John VIII and the West never accepted Constantinople IV, but its canons found itself in canon law and it was explicitly considered an ecumenical council by Western canon law, defies reason.
  15. PL 126:906.
  16. Photius, Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit 6:89. Emphasis added. The translation by the open source version is loose. PG 102:381 states “he [John] both signed and sealed it [the eighth council]” (ὑπέγραψε τε χαὶ ἐπεσφραγίσατο).
  17. This parenthetical statement might have been added by a scribe and was not in the original Latin, but this is entirely a supposition.
  18. The term “blasphemy” might have been an exaggeration in the Greek translation (which the PL is based upon) for a somewhat more neutral term like “error,” but this is entirely a supposition. Pope John VIII in other letters (i.e. 238, 239, 293, 338) is generally vague both as to what the Roman teaching was on the Spirit’s procession and what the errors of others were–probably with the intent of not backing himself into a theological corner. Hence, the term “blasphemy” appears too specific to be completely accurate, as it lends itself to be a condemnation of doctrine. “Error” implies that the issue is that of praxis. However, it is possible that an error of praxis can be indignantly called a blasphemy. For this reason, one must be careful not to confidently assert the Greek is being too free in its translation, even though it is possible.