A possible step towards unity?

[Cavaradossi]

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.

The number of Eastern bishops present was only in the 20’s. Combine that with the untimely death of the patriarch (conveniently after he had signed his approval), and you have a pretty bad mix for guaranteeing a lasting union.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

In reality, the union was not repudiated until the Turks had conquered Constantinople and had installed a Patriarch of their choosing.

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.

That’s what I thought.

I wonder if things could have been different had Catholic Europe gotten its act together and sent its promised military aid to Constantinople.

 

[steve_b]

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.

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.

That’s why I gave the link to the sessions. It’s good to read what was agreed upon in session without the lense of one’s interpretation.

 

[steve_b]

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

Do Orthodox laity view bishops, as peers?

 

[steve_b]

That’s what I thought.

I wonder if things could have been different had Catholic Europe gotten its act together and sent its promised military aid to Constantinople.

What act were they supposed to get together?

 

[dvdjs]

Officially, 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)

Indeed, after the Turks were in control.
Honestly now, how do you think this all would have played out, and how would the histories of the years after Florence would have sounded, had the defense of Constantinople been a success?

 

[Hesychios]

Do Orthodox laity view bishops, as peers?

Since we both know that most of the Orthodox bishops were back home awaiting a report, what do you think I meant?

 

[steve_b]

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

I believe that Council was doomed from the start.

Okay, now that we’re sooooo upbeat, and we also see what poisoned the possibility of the West helping the East militarily against the Turks,

what are we going to do possitively about the topic of this thread?

 

[steve_b]

Since we both know that most of the Orthodox bishops were back home awaiting a report, what do you think I meant?

I guess you’re saying they’re peers

 

[Mickey]

I wonder if things could have been different had Catholic Europe gotten its act together and sent its promised military aid to Constantinople.

I think even if Eugene had intended to help militarily…it would not have mattered much.

 

[Mickey]

The number of Eastern bishops present was only in the 20’s. Combine that with the untimely death of the patriarch (conveniently after he had signed his approval), and you have a pretty bad mix for guaranteeing a lasting union.

Indeed.

 

[dvdjs]

I wonder if things could have been different had Catholic Europe gotten its act together and sent its promised military aid to Constantinople.

The aid was insufficient, clearly. Perhaps the polemics of the anti-unionist faction, and the vacillation of the Emperors dampened enthusiasm for putting one’s life on the line for the Byzantines. The rout at Varna - of combined Catholic and Orthodox forces - also was a factor limiting the troops available. As were internal Western events like the hundred years war.

But one should credit the valor of those who do arrive to give aid. Perhaps 20% of the fighting men were Westerners, and the naval support was primarily western. The Ottomans vastly outnumbered those defending Constantinople - there were only ~5000 in the Byzantine army. In fact, the number of Serbs fighting for the Turks is estimated to have outnumbered the combined forces defending Constantinople.

 

[dcointin]

Not referring to any recent posts but to the idea of unity in general, what do you all think about a laymen choosing to commune in both churches, Catholic and Orthodox, as a way of expressing the unity that I believe we already enjoy spiritually?

 

[Mickey]

Okay, now that we’re sooooo upbeat

I think it is very upbeat. I thank God every day for St Mark of Ephesus and I ask for his intercession.

 

[Mickey]

what do you all think about a laymen choosing to commune in both churches, Catholic and Orthodox, as a way of expressing the unity that I believe we already enjoy spiritually?

 

[dcointin]

I’m just wondering what people would think about that Mickey, I’m not intending to do it!

 

[Mickey]

I’m just wondering what people would think about that Mickey, I’m not intending to do it!

I think one has to be obedient to one’s spiritual father.

 

[russialover]

Why can’t the Pope call a council in an area that is traditionally Latin and Greek(Sicily, Africa) to solve the disunity? Invite the Assyrians, Orientals, and Eastern Orthodox. Tell them that as brothers in Christ they must attend and solve it. Would that be possible?

 

[russialover]

Why can’t the Pope call a council in an area that is traditionally Latin and Greek(Sicily, Africa) to solve the disunity? Invite the Assyrians, Orientals, and Eastern Orthodox. Tell them that as brothers in Christ they must attend and solve it. Would that be possible?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Not referring to any recent posts but to the idea of unity in general, what do you all think about a laymen choosing to commune in both churches, Catholic and Orthodox, as a way of expressing the unity that I believe we already enjoy spiritually?

I think one has to be obedient to one’s spiritual father.

Respectfully, I do not think it is at all improper to attend the liturgical services and worship of the other Churches. We should be encouraged to do so - we as Catholics in fact are so encouraged (Orientale Lumen).

However, Mickey is right in that we must still meet the obligations for Sunday worship, etc. as required in our respective Churches. I’m not sure if dcointin meant anything more in using the term “commune”, but certainly we must be mindful and respectful of the norms of each (e.g. reception of Holy Eucharist by faithful only in Orthodoxy).

I live near a Russian Orthodox (ROCOR) monastery, and attend daily matins and vespers whenever I can. I’ve developed a personal relationship with the clergy there, and they always make me feel most welcome, for which I am truly blessed and grateful. This is, of course, supplemental to worship in my own Church, where matins and vespers cannot be rendered on a regular basis as in a monastic setting.

In fact, the hierarchs both East and West, Orthodox and Catholic, show a great deal of respect for each other of late and do often attend important functions and services held by other Apostolic Churches (and others, for that matter). In this regard, they set a great example for all of us!

We’re not talking about concelebration here (not yet) - just respectful witness of the faith traditions across the aisle …

This fosters mutual respect, which should be developed and maintained even absent reunion.