Hi irenaeuslyons. I haven’t been posting very much on this thread; but after reading this I felt a duty to say something. I won’t ask where you got your ideas, that’s not important to me. What is important is that you shouldn’t accept an idea just because you read it on a Catholic website, or whatever. Quite frankly, there’s an unbelievable amount of garbage on the internet (and still growing), and it’s dangerous to assume that you couldn’t be susceptible to it.Yes, it is said the people rejected it, though for it to be meaningful, they would have to possess some deep theological insight, as they are the sheep not the sheppards entrusted with the deposit. Yes, Mark was the only bishop not to sign against the wisdom of the emperor, all the other bishops and patriarchs in the east. And he was later canonized for his evil deed which eventually climaxed with the fall of Constantinople two decades later. It takes a long long time to raise an army, the crusades are a great example for this. However, the Orthodox going back on their agreement happened immediately after the death of the Patriarch which was upon his return with the delegation from the Council. Mark would not have prevailed had he not died, and there might still be a Constantinople.
I think this systematic doubt is one of the major differences between the thinking of eastern Christianity, and that of the west. In the west they doubt everyone and everything, even themselves. How do I know what I believe is true unless an infallible authority tells me so?Your line of questioning is somewhat reminiscent of questions concerning Descartes’ evil demon postulation (for lack of a better term), and figuring out if what one believes stems from the demon. How do I know if X is true? You never do really solve this epistemological question, even with the papacy, because you first must accept the premise that the papacy was established by Christ and that it is infallible concerning matters of faith and morals before you can believe that the papacy will not lead you into error with its teachings. This is not actual certainty, as you yourself have now conceded, but it merely hides this sort of systemic doubt from the mind of the believer. Ultimately, it is still the believer who makes a judgment as to whether something is true or not.
The Orthodox position is the same, the truth is not decided by majority vote. But neither is it persuaded by one person. If the truth is the same for all and for all time, why is the truth limited to one single infallible person? Should I not be able to comprehend the truth as much as the Pope?The Catholic Church’s position is that the truth is not open for democratic election. The Bishops united with the Pope are the ones whom Christ has bestowed authority on. The power to bind and loose does not extend to the laity.
Ad hom, the last resort.I think you need to read my post again…this time do it slowly and carefully. And you might want to pick up some history books that go back more than about 50 years.
Because 1500 year disputes don’t just get resolved overnight. The people involved has been very positive about the talks and believe that union is imminent. But imminent doesn’t mean days or weeks, we’ve waited 1500 years for this, what is a few more years? Many believe, and these are people in their 50s and 60s and older, that union will happen in our lifetime. So it is not far off. But there are still a number of smaller issues to resolve. We can’t just say, “hey, we agree, hug?” Every schism is an ugly one and we need to resolve the many anathemas hurled at each other at those time. Many OO saints have been anathemized by the EO, and many EO saints have been anathemized by the OO, how can we be in communion if we believe the people venerated as holy by the other side are heretics?I’ll ask this of you - and I’ll assume that the difference between the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcdonians is one of language and expression and not a true difference of theology (as I stated as possibility #2 in my earlier post). As this rejection of Chalcedon was the main impetus for the schism between the Church and the Oriental Orthodox, why are the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox not yet in communion? What has taken you so long to move forward on healing these divisions? And why do the Orthodox have such temper tantrums over the differences of expression in the Roman theology?
An interesting phenomenon I’ve witness a number of times is that, when asked how many ex cathedra statements they believe there have been and why, many Catholics will say “Even protestants know that such-and-such was an ex cathedra statement!”I think this systematic doubt is one of the major differences between the thinking of eastern Christianity, and that of the west. In the west they doubt everyone and everything, even themselves. How do I know what I believe is true unless an infallible authority tells me so?
This systematic doubt, and the attempt to demand certainty counteracts any attempts to convert people in the west. You are forced to convince people that they can’t gather the true meaning of the scriptures and of the writings of the fathers. Rather than convincing them that faith is necessary, you convince them that doubt is necessary.
Yes, those already under the Muslims spoke out against the union from the get-go.Not outside of Constantinople. The Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem wrote in the year 1443 an encyclical condemning the council of Florence, and suspended from church service all who had been ordained by the pro-union patriarch until their faith could be investigated.
You always blame the Muslims for preventing the union, then why did Russia not reunite with Rome?Yes, those already under the Muslims spoke out against the union from the get-go.
Maybe the strong tie to Constantinople? Why did the choose Byzantine spirituality over Western? The delegates were awestruck by the Church of Hagia Sophia is what I read. Perhaps they didn’t want to sever ties due to history and connection. Similarly, perhaps that is why the Ethiopian Orthodox remained in communion with the Coptic Orthodox Christians.You always blame the Muslims for preventing the union, then why did Russia not reunite with Rome?
Supposedly because they witnessed the Byzantine liturgy and it was heaven on earth.Maybe the strong tie to Constantinople? Why did the choose Byzantine spirituality over Western? You know that story right?
I edited a bit above, but yes, that sounds right. Partly because the actual beauty of Hagia Sophia too; the whole experience is I think. I’m trying to remember exactly what I read.Supposedly because they witnessed the Byzantine liturgy and it was heaven on earth.
Bishop Ware mentions the story in the Orthodox Church. Supposedly the Russian delegates went to various places to witness the ways of worship of the different places. They went to the Middle East and witnessed the Muslims worshiping. While the Muslims worshiped they were looking around and unfocused on the worship. They then went to Rome, and it was better, but they weren’t drawn to it. After that they went to Constantinople and witness the liturgy. They said it was heaven on earth.I edited a bit above, but yes, that sounds right. Partly because the actual beauty of Hagia Sophia too; the whole experience is I think. I’m trying to remember exactly what I read.
Whether they were under the Muslims or not is immaterial, because nothing can be soundly derived from this fact. If you are willing to give the pro-unionists the benefit of the doubt (i.e., that they acted without coercion or concern for their crumbling empire), then you should extend the same courtesy to those “under the Muslims.” Plus, the Georgians, who were threatened by the Muslims but not under Muslim rule at the time of Florence also rejected the council. Whatever it is that you were attempting to imply with your statement, you have really no leg to stand on.Yes, those already under the Muslims spoke out against the union from the get-go.
The Russians were always an independent kingdom. They were never under the Byzantine Empire. This started in Rus and continued on to what would become Russia. They don’t have to follow Constantinople if their bishops believed that Rome was right. Besides, at the time of the Council of Florence, the West was a stronger military power than the East, so it couldn’t have been for political reasons. If Rus wanted a strong political ally, they would have aligned with the Pope, not Constantinople.Maybe the strong tie to Constantinople? Why did the choose Byzantine spirituality over Western? The delegates were awestruck by the Church of Hagia Sophia is what I read. Perhaps they didn’t want to sever ties due to history and connection. Similarly, perhaps that is why the Ethiopian Orthodox remained in communion with the Coptic Orthodox Christians.
I know they weren’t under the Byzantines and that this was the Kievan Rus (this is my understanding); I was meaning to suggest an emotional (for lack of a better word), and spiritual tie due to the history we are discussing. Of course they didn’t have to follow Constantinople, I was just giving my theory/ explanation which I feel to be probable. I offered the Oriental Orthodox Christians (Copts and Ethiopians specifically) as a parallel, albeit an imperfect one.The Russians were always an independent kingdom. They were never under the Byzantine Empire. This started in Rus and continued on to what would become Russia. They don’t have to follow Constantinople if their bishops believed that Rome was right. Besides, at the time of the Council of Florence, the West was a stronger military power than the East, so it couldn’t have been for political reasons. If Rus wanted a strong political ally, they would have aligned with the Pope, not Constantinople.
So you are suggesting the bishops of Rus decided to follow another Church because of emotional reasons and not because of the truth?I know they weren’t under the Byzantines and that this was the Kievan Rus (this is my understanding); I was meaning to suggest an emotional (for lack of a better word), and spiritual tie due to the history we are discussing. Of course they didn’t have to follow Constantinople, I was just giving my theory/ explanation which I feel to be probable. I offered the Oriental Orthodox Christians (Copts and Ethiopians specifically) as a parallel, albeit an imperfect one.
On a side note, I thought I read in another thread or maybe even this one where a poster was stating that in the Eastern Orthodox view, the Bishops are representing the people and are not acting on their own accord (my words could be off here.) This might be relevant to my theory…
I think the best explanation is that they followed what they believed. The Russians remained in communion with Constantinople because they held the same faith. Ethiopia stayed in communion with Alexandria because they held the same faith. And Milan stayed in communion with Rome because they held the same faith. The best assumption is that people honestly followed what they believed.I know they weren’t under the Byzantines and that this was the Kievan Rus (this is my understanding); I was meaning to suggest an emotional (for lack of a better word), and spiritual tie due to the history we are discussing. Of course they didn’t have to follow Constantinople, I was just giving my theory/ explanation which I feel to be probable. I offered the Oriental Orthodox Christians (Copts and Ethiopians specifically) as a parallel, albeit an imperfect one.
On a side note, I thought I read in another thread or maybe even this one where a poster was stating that in the Eastern Orthodox view, the Bishops are representing the people and are not acting on their own accord (my words could be off here.) This might be relevant to my theory…
How very true. I don’t know why people want to assume the worst of other people just because those other people went for something against the belief of that person.I think the best explanation is that they followed what they believed. The Russians remained in communion with Constantinople because they held the same faith. Ethiopia stayed in communion with Alexandria because they held the same faith. And Milan stayed in communion with Rome because they held the same faith. The best assumption is that people honestly followed what they believed.
You are probably referencing me, and I think you are probably misunderstanding it. In the Orthodox perspective the bishops never exist without the community. A bishop without a community or church is a contradiction. Apostolic succession includes the church, so it is the succession of the Church as well as the bishop as its head. There is a corresponding relationship between them. The church needs the bishops for the sacraments, but the bishop performs his functions as the head of his own church. Just as a head needs the body, so does the bishop need the church. At a council, he is still the head of his church. He doesn’t become disassociated from the particular church.On a side note, I thought I read in another thread or maybe even this one where a poster was stating that in the Eastern Orthodox view, the Bishops are representing the people and are not acting on their own accord (my words could be off here.) This might be relevant to my theory…
Constantine TG,How very true. I don’t know why people want to assume the worst of other people just because those other people went for something against the belief of that person.