While I agree that the Council of Lyons is not representative and shouldn’t be considered binding, I believe that at that time the Patriarchate of Constantinople was the only real game in town. The “Church of Kiev” was a subsidiary of the Church of Constantinople, as was the Church of Antioch for all intents and purposes, IIRC. It wasn’t until later that these Churches gained sufficient independence to be considered their own hierarchies.
I understand now. I had thought you stated that the Pope imposed an addition to the Creed, but when I looked back to your original statement, I noticed it did not actually explicitly state that it was the Pope who imposed an addition to the Creed. However, you seemed to imply it by stating that Florence realized its mistake. Then again, you never actually stated that the Pope imposed it, but rather that it was imposed by the Lyons Union. My bad.
Why would it matter. The fact is that the creed was said with the filioque in the West, but not in the East.
That was my pont exactly. If it is not a universal addition, and only local, it should not affect the universal Church. The problem here really is not the original Latin or Greek, but the English translation which is so ubiquitous that it makes no distinction between the meaning of the Latin procedit and the Greek ekproeusai.
One of the primary purposes of that Council was reunion, so naturally the Church wanted their participation. The Eastern Orthodox have had representatives at other Ecumenical Councils as well, such as at Vatican II.
Modern man thinks he is so sophisticated, but we’re still suffering the ill effects of Babel!
The Orthodox present at Vatican II were observers.
Interestingly, I believe the Eastern Orthodox were invited to participate fully in Vatican I but declined. I don’t know if they were invited only as observers to Vatican II, or if they were invited as full participants. Does anyone know the details on that?
Interesting. I vaguely recall the Orthodox being invited to another big council (Trent? Vatican I?).
At Vatican II, I don’t know if the Orthodox were invited as full participants? I doubt they would have been given the ability to vote, but they might have been able to make interventions and such. As for the Russians, to be able to convince them to come even as observers required the Church to agree not to discuss Communism or the Soviet State.Interesting. I vaguely recall the Orthodox being invited to another big council (Trent? Vatican I?).
A few years ago I read the book The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, in which I believe this was discussed. Seems there were some complications regarding the Russian Church. I don’t have the book on me now, unfortunately.
Anyone know if the Protestants were invited as full participants?
I seem to recall that the Orthodox were attended Vatican II as observers. I have no idea if any were able (or even desired) to make an intervention. Is there a participating bishop or peritus in the house???
But, at Trent there most likely were still validly ordained Bishops still around in the Protestant world. This would be true most for Lutherans and Anglicans (I can’t remember whether England was for Rome or against at that time – they switched back and forth with each successive monarch for about 200 years).
Yes, I was joking about the Protestants (the conspiracy theories)
At the UN, for example, those who hold “Observer” status are entitled to participate in debate, etc, but of course do not have a vote.
The then-Melkite Patriarch (Maximos IV) was a Cardinal (although there was some internal controversy about his having accepted). Anyway, (and this is just a guess), if there was any issue of where he would be seated relative to the Cardinals, it probably would have had something to to with protocol and precedence: the Melkite Patriarch holds a rather complex title (“Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem” although it may be even more complex than that) so it could likely have been the perennial issue of Alexandria taking precedence over Antioch.If I remember correctly, at Vatican II there was an issue of where the Melkite Patriarch ought to be seated relative to the Cardinals. How much more complicated the situation were an Orthodox Patriarch (or his representatives) to show up as active participants–and amongst the Eastern Catholic bishops! One wonders if they would have all acted as civil as us on here.
True, and had any of them been called to participate at Trent, it would have been de facto recognition of the validity of that bishop’s Apostolic succession.