A possible step towards unity?

[dvdjs]

I would also like to know where Catholics are being admitted into Holy Orthodoxy with only confession and communion and without even first being baptized or chrismated?

That is the Russian tradition. Here is a post from another forum on the subject by Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff…

In reality, the Russian Orthodox Church fully recognized the validity of
apostolic succession in both the Roman Catholic and Oriental Orthodox
Churches (Copts, Armenians, Assyrians, etc.).

I can find, rather easily, at least fifty pre-revolutionary official sources
of the Russian Orthodox Church that state, unequivocally, that the Roman
Catholics have apostolic succession–these are textbooks of
Canon Law, Manuals and Handbooks for Clergy, and other sources that
reference official Decrees of the Holy Synod.

The Baptism of Roman Catholics and Monophysites was recognized as completely
valid and salvific, as were the Mysteries of Confirmation, Marriage and
Ordination.

Remember, the official position of the Russian Orthodox Church was that none
of these Mysteries should be repeated if a Roman Catholic were to wish to
become Orthodox.

Orthodox priests were explicitly forbidden to “re-baptize” Roman
Catholics. And Roman Catholic priests who became Orthodox were accepted
simply by Confession of Faith and then vesting–they were not baptized,
chrismated or reordained.

And-- the Russian Orthodox Church issued an official decree allowing Roman
Catholic Uniates to be given Holy Communion by Orthodox priests in those
areas where they could not be ministered to by a Uniate priest.

In the “Handbook for Priests” by Bulgakov, a discussion is found regarding
whether Episcopalian (Anglican) priests could also be received in full
ecclesiastical rank when becoming Orthodox, as were Roman
Catholics. The question revolved as to whether the Anglicans had preserved
valid apostolic succession AS HAD THE CATHOLICS.

So-- there is no question that the Church of Russia considered the Roman
Catholics to have valid apostolic succession.

With love in Christ,
Prot. Alexander Lebedeff

 

[ByzCathCantor]

As I said before, it is not easy to sort out an unbiased history between Florence and the fall, but the agreed upon facts, do not support the idea of “the rejection of Florence” in 1439.

While there was great discord, and no formal promulgation for many years, neither was there definitive rejection. The next two Patriarchs after Joseph II were certainly and clearly proponents of the union. The second was driven out of Constantinople, by the workings of a council that aimed to reject the union, but within ~ a year, on December 1452, a formal declaration of the acceptance of the Council was made in Constantinople, with both the Pope of Rome and the exiled Patriarch commemorated. The fall occurred months later. The definitive rejection of the union was done after the Fall.

And all that said, it’s both fair and important to note that there were political considerations favoring this union, as the Patriarchs likely well understood. Constantinople stood alone against the Turks, without European support.

The fall of Constantinople had a profound impact on all of Christianity, and influenced world history forward and to this day.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

That is the Russian tradition. Here is a post from another forum on the subject by Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff…

Well that certainly adds basis to an argument for unity! Nice find and nice post - thanks for sharing!

 

[dvdjs]

Maybe Hesychios is incorrect? I would like to see evidence presented with references to clear this up…agreed?.

You should read some of the many books on the subject. The problem I have in recommending any is that it is not easy to sort out history and historical mythos. I looked around to try to find some expert opinions on the standard treatments but have come up dry so far. Maybe later.

On the issues that got this started: Florence was by no means an example of laity overuling a united synod of bishops. That is clear enough from simple historical facts. It gets presented that way so often that it is understandable that that sense of it may be taken as fact, but that actual facts are against this view.

 

[dvdjs]

Well that certainly adds basis to an argument for unity! Nice find and nice post - thanks for sharing!

I should credit the source:
groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-archive/message/2943

 

[dvdjs]

And all that said, it’s both fair and important to note that there were political considerations favoring this union, as the Patriarchs likely well understood. Constantinople stood alone against the Turks, without European support.

By the same token the enmity of the Byzantines for the “Franks” was also rooted in political considerations.

 

[Mickey]

Constantinople fell in 1453, after the rejection of Florence in late 1439 (although it had been signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople prior to his death later that year).

Wearied and disillusioned, Emperor John VIII died childless, at fifty-seven years of age, on the 31st day of October, in the year 1448. Manuel the Rhetor records that, on his deathbed, John repented of his dealings in Ferrara-Florence and rejected all union with the Church of Rome. He had acknowledged before his death that the union with Rome only brought turmoil and dissension to his subjects. Before his repose, Saint Mark also mentioned that the emporer “openly repented of the event" (the union).

The next year, 1449, three eastern patriarchs (Philotheos of Alexandria, Dorotheos of Antioch, and Theophanes of Jerusalem) held a synod in Jerusalem where they again condemned the Council of Florence as “tyrannical and foul.” The following year they met again in Constantinople at the Church of Hagia Sophia. At this council (1450), under the influence of Monk Gennadios Scholarios, they again denounced the “union” and deposed Patriarch Gregory Mammas, replacing him with the pious monk Athanasios (1450-1453). Mammas had held the post for more than six years and had been shunned by most of the clergy. Deprived of his throne, he fled as a fugitive to the more friendly atmosphere of Rome in August of 1451.
(From the Great Synaxaristes of the Orthodox Church)

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Wearied and disillusioned, Emperor John VIII died childless, at fifty-seven years of age, on the 31st day of October, in the year 1448. Manuel the Rhetor records that, on his deathbed, John repented of his dealings in Ferrara-Florence and rejected all union with the Church of Rome. He had acknowledged before his death that the union with Rome only brought turmoil and dissension to his subjects. Before his repose, Saint Mark also mentioned that the emporer “openly repented of the event" (the union).

The next year, 1449, three eastern patriarchs (Philotheos of Alexandria, Dorotheos of Antioch, and Theophanes of Jerusalem) held a synod in Jerusalem where they again condemned the Council of Florence as “tyrannical and foul.” The following year they met again in Constantinople at the Church of Hagia Sophia. At this council (1450), under the influence of Monk Gennadios Scholarios, they again denounced the “union” and deposed Patriarch Gregory Mammas, replacing him with the pious monk Athanasios (1450-1453). Mammas had held the post for more than six years and had been shunned by most of the clergy. Deprived of his throne, he fled as a fugitive to the more friendly atmosphere of Rome in August of 1451.
(From the Great Synaxaristes of the Orthodox Church)

Yes, and Constantinople fell, and Hagia Sophia became a mosque …

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Yes, and Constantinople fell, and Hagia Sophia became a mosque …

Sorry, Mickey! I did not mean to be sarcastic or uncharitable. The additional history you provided is enlightening, yet also incomplete. History also suggests that Patriarch Joseph II’s two successors were in favor of the union. Whether or not, and irrespective of how it ended, the religious and political consequences of the **failure ** of Florence and the fall of Constantinople were profound.

It is also no secret of history that a good deal of impetus for the union was political from the Eastern front, acknowledging the Turkish threat on the horizon (not saying there weren’t political considerations from the West, as there were most assuredly). In that regard, one cannot blame some of the staunch Orthodox hierarchs, most notably St. Mark of Epheseus, for remaining steadfast in their convictions. Faith and politics should never intermingle (yes, that could be a multi-year thread in and of itself). For this reason alone he and others are to be remembered and commemorated by all, irrespective. The irony, however, is that we all could have benefitted from reunion at that time, both politically and spiritually, as history has now proven.

After a few hundred years, maybe we could just acknowledge that we still have more in common than that which sets us apart, and with politics aside, answer the calling in our Lord’s prayer as recited in the Agony in the Garden, for us to be as one …

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. [John 17:20-23]

 

[Mickey]

Hagia Sophia became a mosque …

It was God’s will…but it is very sad. It was such a magnificent Church.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

It was God’s will…but it is very sad. It was such a magnificent Church.

Glorious, indeed! I suppose we can be grateful at least that it will be preserved as a state-run museum, so the memory will not be lost!

 

[steve_b]

You should read some of the many books on the subject. The problem I have in recommending any is that it is not easy to sort out history and historical mythos. I looked around to try to find some expert opinions on the standard treatments but have come up dry so far. Maybe later.

That presumes one has the qualifications to make that correct call…true?

dvdjs:

On the issues that got this started: Florence was by no means an example of laity overuling a united synod of bishops. That is clear enough from simple historical facts. It gets presented that way so often that it is understandable that that sense of it may be taken as fact, but that actual facts are against this view.

Based on whose facts…right?

seems we need to look at the primary documents of the council. The council went through name changes, city changes, and many years of being in session. I’ve read where there were 700 in session. Maybe not all the time of the council but it reached that number of attendees.
ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm

 

[Frank_J]

RC Church can have unity tomorrow all it has to is recant…

 

[Nine_Two]

Unless you deny that he occasionally served as a kind of court of final appeals in the first millennium, then I don’t think it’s rationally possible for you to claim that you do not “accept that he is the highest.” To assent to that first millennium exercise of his primacy is to accept that he is in some sense “highest.”

I meant to address this in my last post.

The Bishop of Rome often asked as a mediator in disputes between bishops, however this was not his right. This was something he would do at the request of the two parties, as the holder of the See of the greatest honour.
Even after reunion, especially if done under the circumstances advocated in this thread, there would be some distrust of his post and it is unlikely he would be asked to take those cases right off.

He was never a Supreme Court equivalent, a person who would as a matter of policy look over contentious cases.

 

[Nine_Two]

Hello my brother, I agree that the laity made their voice heard, they always do.

I think it is important to recognize that many and probably most of the Orthodox bishops alive at the time were not present at Florence. This was more in the lines of a delegation. I am not sure how many Orthodox bishops were present, a few dozen, hundreds? (Worth looking into, I am curious.)

Following long established custom, a council is considered ecumenical some time afterward, all the local synods would have to approve and put the terms and decisions of the council into operation. It is still a church of synods, the synods ultimately must ratify what the gathering of delegates decides. This is much more than a ‘veto power’ of the laity, it is more like a peer review, and the Bishops (as well as Hieromonks and Presbyters) back home had much to say about it too. The faith is everyone’s concern, as it should be.

This is the infallibility of the church at work.

Peer review, yes, that’s a much better analogy than veto. Thank you/

 

[Vico]

RC Church can have unity tomorrow all it has to is recant…

What has to be recanted? (I have seen a range of issues mentioned with as few as one - primacy, but there seems to be no Orthodox list that all eastern Orthodox agree with.) I suspect it will require a council first.

 

[Nine_Two]

What has to be recanted? (I have seen a range of issues mentioned with as few as one - primacy, but there seems to be no Orthodox list that all eastern Orthodox agree with.) I suspect it will require a council first.

I don’t know about a council, but if Rome agreed with that one I’m confident it could all be negotiated from there, if both sides truly want it.

 

[dvdjs]

That presumes one has the qualifications to make that correct call…true?

Not sure I follow. The idea is to see how various treatments have stood up to scholarly review. Most anyone can write a book. But if the book contains garbage, there are likely to be many who follow up pointing out the shortcomings.

Based on whose facts…right?

Facts are not proprietary. Interpretation might be, but facts are not. In this case the key fact that vitiate the faux history presented earlier is the lack of unanimity of the Orthodox bishops. There is not doubt of that fact.

 

[Mickey]

History also suggests that Patriarch Joseph II’s two successors were in favor of the union.

Patriarch Metrophanes II was condemned as a heretic. Another wave of repudiation of signatures against the Council of Florence came after the failure of a Crusade–of deep concern to Eugene–which ended in defeat at Varna in 1444. In the end, only a very few were faithful to the council, such as the Ecumenical Patriarchs Metrophanes II and Gregory Mammas Melissenos Straegopoulos (1446-1450), and two eastern cardinals, Isidore (formerly of Kiev) and Bessarion (formerly of Nicaea). Ofiicially, the Union of Florence was recalled by Patriarch Symeon I of Constantinople (1446, 1471-1474), in the Synod of 1472.
(Great Synaxaristes of the Orthodox Church)

In that regard, one cannot blame some of the staunch Orthodox hierarchs, most notably St. Mark of Epheseus, for remaining steadfast in their convictions.

Of course not. I have a strong veneration for St Mark.

The irony, however, is that we all could have benefitted from reunion at that time, both politically and spiritually, as history has now proven.

I believe that Council was doomed from the start.

 

[Vico]

I don’t know about a council, but if Rome agreed with that one I’m confident it could all be negotiated from there, if both sides truly want it.

Think about it. Rome could not agree to recant the primacy, unless the primacy is true, but then that is a contradiction – otherwise each eparch and diocean bishop must agree so it requires a synod.