The Pope’s rule has always been part of the argument. It was clear there was a building opinion in Rome about the Pope’s role over the Church. If you look through the years you will see the gradual progression. The excommunication on the Patriarch of Constantinople was for his refusal to submit to the Pope. How is the Papacy not a central point?
Central to what? The perspectiive of many Eastern Christians to retain and matintain communion with Rome? I think we already agreed that, while there have been many such Eastern Christians, this point was not crucial.
So benevolence is relative? It is okay to accept the heavy hand of the Latins rather than the heavy hand of the Muslims, is that what you are getting here? I never thought of Catholicism to be about being just slightly better than the next bad guy.
Actually I was thinking of the Byzantines.
Heritage has nothing to do with it. As one who is of an equal, possibly greater pedigree than yours told me, that history is written by the victor. And while that is a common saying, he mentioned that in the context of our discussion of Church history and the Union of Brest. Every side tells their side as if it is the truth, but what then with the opposing view of each side? Fact is, the unions were a result of politics. The Union of Brest was conveniently signed not long after the authocephally of Moscow.
Heritage is very helpful in understanding the mentality of a people. I agree that you will get all sorts of sides and polemics in written history; having a deep understanding of the mindset of the people involved in that history helps to sort through the chaff.
Your “fact” about the unions is overly simplistic. My ancestors are from the See of Uzhhorod. Our union was forcefully opposed by local rulers, was done in light of 50 years of witnessing the pros and cons in Brest, and was not particularly related to Moscow, but more the the problems in Phanar, as we were immediately subject to the EP.
I find that the East are more honest with their sins than the West when the crusades and the inquisition painted in so much bright light rich in polemics. Nobody is pretending here that the East does not have its share of sins, but the topic of this thread is the Orthodox belief on the supreme rule of the Pope. So I don’t know why the sins of the East needs to be discussed. If you feel you want to talk about that, start a thread about it and lets be honest about everything. The East does not pretend they have a man that can do no wrong, all of us have fallen short.
These topics come up because they are brought up and demand a response.
Like the idea that " the East are more honest with their sins than the West". I would love to see an Orthodox exposition of the Crusades, including the fourth, that properly acknowledges their own particpation, treachery and culpabilty. Please, please send me a link. Or and link to an apology like JPII’s.
I have asked pointedly, here, on multiple occasions, for the least acknowledgement of the dastardly role played by EOC in the liquidation of Greek Catholic churches in Eastern Europe. No one ever has, and to this day the MP is in utter denial even as to the phoniness of the Synods of L’viv and Uzzhorod. I don’t know what informs your perspective, but it is the complete opposite of what I have experiences
We can only judge history by what happened, and what happened is that no one really was itching to get back with Rome for the right reason. Florence was really about politics, they were willing to submit to Rome in exchange for military support that never came
.
We can judge real facts, but motivations are hard to discern with accurately and precisely. What we do know, is that people did seek to restore and maintain communion with Rome. Again, what we know about Florence is that reunion was restored and held until abrogation by secular authorities. And by the way, what history suggests that support never came? How many Latins died at the fall of C’ple? Better what wasd the ratio of Byzantine to Latins fighting there? For that matter, how many in the first Crusade that drove the Ottomans back from Nicea and out of Western Anatolia?
Of course there were constant effort by Rome, like what the Jesuits did. And of course the unia model which sought to forcibly convert the Orthodox to Roman Catholicism.
I agree that not every method was good wise, and already said so. But your characterization of the unia is simply incompatible with the facts o f history. What type of force provided for the Bishops at Brest to choose, as they did, whether to participate or not?
I am glad that you see the constancy of Rome is seeking reunion. No “cut the baby in half”, or “get your own onion”. That, IMO, is probative.
