Correct. Remember the "8th" (Photian) Council(s)? First there was one that condemned +Photius and was signed by a Pope, then 10 years later on the dime, that one was annulled and a "new" 8th council restored Photius and dropped filioque, and was signed by a Pope (a different one). Then, after the Great Schism, Rome reverted back to "first" 8th Council that condemned +Photius and it's still the "official" 8th Council in the Latin Church.
Oh, let us not forget the Council of Florence, first accepted by the East and then rejected. I guess inconsistency is a prerogative of the East.
As for the so-called Fourth Council of Constantinople (879) being accepted by Rome and only rejected after the Schism, let us see what Philip Schaff (neither Catholic nor Orthodox, a German Reformed scholar in the U.S.) has to say in his History of the Christian Church:
The papal legates assented to all, and so deceived their master by false accounts of the surrender of Bulgaria that he thanked the emperor for the service he had done to the Church by this synod.So Pope John briefly accepted this council because he was deceived and quickly repudiated it once he found out what it really contained.But when the pope’s eyes were opened, he sent the bishop Marinus to Constantinople to declare invalid what the legates had done contrary to his instructions. For this Marinus was shut up in prison for thirty days. After his return Pope John VIII. solemnly pronounced the anathema on Photius, who had dared to deceive and degrade the holy see, and had added new frauds to the old. Marinus renewed the anathema after he was elected pope (882).
“So Pope John briefly accepted this council because he was deceived and quickly repudiated it once he found out what it really contained.”
So a Protestant would have us believe. The facts, as they say, are well known and otherwise. Pope John repudiated because of factionalism at Rome and Constantinople, not because anyone deceived him.
Ah, insult time, is it? Sounds like an admission of defeat to me.
The faux re-union of Florence was an act of desperation on the part of the Church hierarchy and the Roman Emperor (the Ottoman Turks were knocking on the doors of Constantinople and the East needed all the help it could muster).
So, they agreed to everything the Vatican dished out at them, save for one brave bishop. The false re-union failed not because of the duplicity or the prerogative to inconsistency of the East, but because the people of God and the lower clergy rejected it.
In the Orthodox Church, we don't have the "pray, pay and obey" rule. If the people of God do not go along, it won't happen. Orthodox saints are not proclaimed by the hierarchy but venerated spontaneously by the people, just as in the early days of our Church. The laity, laos tou Theou, the people of God are an integral part of the Church and not just mindless believers.
As for the so-called Fourth Council of Constantinople (879) being accepted by Rome and only rejected after the Schism...Pope John briefly accepted this council because he was deceived and quickly repudiated it once he found out what it really contained
The source you are using (Philip Schaff) to show that the Pope was deceived and then changed his acceptance is only one version as to what happened, which happens to agree with the official Catholic position and is therefore your choice. That doesn't make it necessarily right or even credible.
The fact that Schaff is a Reformed scholar, which you mention to add credibility to your position, is irrelevant. Historian Francis Dvornik, a Catholic, argues that the Fourth Council of Constantinople was accepted by Pope John VIII, a position opposite that of Schaff's.
Historical facts, however, back Dvornik's argument because +Photius' restoration was not revoked by Pope John VIII, but only after the Great Schism in the 11th century. If Pope John VIII did revoke the Council of 879, then Photius would have been denounced (again) and deposed, as in the previous Council a decade earlier.
Since this didn't happen, the only plausible conclusion is that the Pope did agree to the Council of 879 and that the Latin Church reversed its stance after the Great Schism of 1054.
In fact, another historical consideration backs this up. The filioque was not added to the Creed officially by the Vatican until the 11th century, just before the Great Schism, and the Council of 879 was, among other things, denounced the inclusion of filioque as heresy.
If Pope John VIII did change his mind, such official inclusion wold have occurred right there and then, but it didn't.
There is nothing magical to support Shaff's assertion. It differs from other historian's, the historical events that followed the Council of 879 credibly support the opinion that the Council was approved and that, at least for a while, the Frankish popes of Rome tolerated it.
One must be very careful of many, many forgeries that exist. One must look at the historical circumstances of the events and try to see if the various documents reflect a harmonious historical picture of one that is intenable.