Orthodoxy, Papacy

[josie_L]

The Council was widely rejected by the people and the monks when the delegates returned home and told their story. Many of the delegates repented. From what I’ve read, the emperor stood to the union until the city was conquered.

And what precedence do we have in the history of the Church of repudiating an ecumenical council based on the rejection of the people and monks (for that is what it sounds like)?

 

[Madaglan]

Yes, the representatives (the actual patriarchs could not be there) for Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem all signed as did Constantinople (the actual patriarch was present), and, of course, Rome. As for believing that they signed because of bribery, there is no proof whatsoever for this, in fact, it would seem rather odd considering it took decades before the East officially repudiated Florence.

The Greek delegates were moved on by their emperor, who himself was promised military and financial support from the Pope of Rome.

The emperor held most closely to the union, but the people and the delegates rather quickly repented of it. I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that it took decades for the East to repudiate the council.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Thanks very much for the information.

That is very curious. So I wonder how this idea started, since I read it on an Orthodox site and heard it directly on a forum. The site also made it sound like when the Council was over, the people immediatelhy rejected the compromise/council decision and chose rather to suffer at the hands of the Muslim armies or something like that.

I’ve never seen a source that says it took decades for the East to “officially” repudiate the council. Of course the Roman idea of an official repudiation and an Orthodox idea may be very different. There are certainly many accounts of bishops who signed onto the union being shunned by their flocks and clergy upon return to their dioceses, with clergy refusing to serve with them and such.

I often wonder if the people who criticize the Orthodox rejection of Florence have ever taken a moment to imagine what it was like from their perspective. Imagine if Pope Benedict attended the upcoming Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church. Imagine if after the council he came out and denounced Papal Infallibility, universal jurisdiction, purgatory and the filioque and announced he was uniting with the Orthodox Church. What would your reaction be? I imagine the most likely reaction would be his decision and statements would be repudiated by the Catholic Church, laity and clergy together. The reason is, even though he is the pope, he would be declaring something clearly in violation of your received faith. In that case he would rightly be rejected.

Florence was really no different. The Orthodox bishops there, under tremendous pressure, signed a document that was recognized by the Church as clearly violating the received faith. When they returned home they soundly rejected because of it.

In Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

And what precedence do we have in the history of the Church of repudiating an ecumenical council based on the rejection of the people and monks (for that is what it sounds like)?

It wasn’t a ecumenical council. If a group of Catholic bishops signed on to a clearly heretical document would you follow them?

 

[josie_L]

It wasn’t a ecumenical council. If a group of Catholic bishops signed on to a clearly heretical document would you follow them?

If a group of Catholic bishops in an ecumenical council guided by the Holy Spirit decreed such and such as divinely revealed dogma then I would follow it.

 

[josephdaniel29]

If a group of Catholic bishops in an ecumenical council guided by the Holy Spirit decreed such and such as divinely revealed dogma then I would follow it.

How can the Holy Spirit lead a council to declare heretical doctrine?

 

[Madaglan]

And what precedence do we have in the history of the Church of repudiating an ecumenical council based on the rejection of the people and monks (for that is what it sounds like)?

It’s not an ecumenical council from the Orthodox perspective, so the point is moot.

It was not only the people and monks who rejected the council, but St. Mark of Ephesus as well. Somewhat a Mark against the world situation, but there is precedence in St. Athanasius.

As to popular rejection of a council considered un-orthodox, the Eastern monks along with many of the faithful rejected the authority of iconoclast councils, e.g. Constantinople 754, and the emperor who enforced iconoclastic practices. These monks eventually triumphed through the 7th Ecumenical Council in 787. The leading defenders of the orthodox iconodule belief were St. Theodore the Studite and St. John the Damascene, both monks.

 

[Madaglan]

I’ve never seen a source that says it took decades for the East to “officially” repudiate the council. Of course the Roman idea of an official repudiation and an Orthodox idea may be very different. There are certainly many accounts of bishops who signed onto the union being shunned by their flocks and clergy upon return to their dioceses, with clergy refusing to serve with them and such.

I often wonder if the people who criticize the Orthodox rejection of Florence have ever taken a moment to imagine what it was like from their perspective. Imagine if Pope Benedict attended the upcoming Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church. Imagine if after the council he came out and denounced Papal Infallibility, universal jurisdiction, purgatory and the filioque and announced he was uniting with the Orthodox Church. What would your reaction be? I imagine the most likely reaction would be his decision and statements would be repudiated by the Catholic Church, laity and clergy together. The reason is, even though he is the pope, he would be declaring something clearly in violation of your received faith. In that case he would rightly be rejected.

Florence was really no different. The Orthodox bishops there, under tremendous pressure, signed a document that was recognized by the Church as clearly violating the received faith. When they returned home they soundly rejected because of it.

In Christ
Joe

Very well put! :tiphat:

 

[josie_L]

The Greek delegates were moved on by their emperor, who himself was promised military and financial support from the Pope of Rome.

The emperor held most closely to the union, but the people and the delegates rather quickly repented of it. I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that it took decades for the East to repudiate the council.

The official repudiation of Florence by the East was in 1472 I believe, as to the source I can’t remember off the top of my head but I will find it for you. I would also like to know what is your source for believing that it was repudiated immediately, i.e., do you have a letter confirming this, i.e., since the patriarchs initially agreed to the decrees then there must be a letter written to Rome stating their repudiation?

p.s. They were not all Greek delegates, i.e, the representative to Antioch was Isidore of Kiev. Also, the patriarch to Alexandria, Philotheus, who could not join the ecumenical council in Florence accepted with joy its decrees:

Philotheus of Alexandria (1435-1459) joyfully received Council of Florence in 9/1/1440 letter: “We decided, together with our Egyptian prelates and our other clergy, to commemorate Your Beatitude before the other patriarchs in all the churches of Christ everywhere in the solemnities of the Mass, as is provided for in the sacred canons” [Fr. Georg Hofmann, S.J., Orientalium documenta minora, docs. 33, 34 qtd. in Gill 323] and “any who did not accept what had been decreed and defined in the holy Synod should be held as heretical” [Fr. Georg Hofmann, S.J., Orientalium documenta minora, doc. 38 qtd. in Gill 323]

thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/

 

[josie_L]

It wasn’t a ecumenical council. If a group of Catholic bishops signed on to a clearly heretical document would you follow them?

And that is what you say as an Orthodox, however, can you state your source for saying that they signed because they were bribed or forced into it? I know that the emperor needed military assistance but why use an ecumenical council in order to achieve this end, i.e., we attempted to assist you in the past (which went awry I know) without having required anything like arm-twisting on the part of the Catholic Church. Recollect that the Muslims were a danger to us as well, so I believe we would have assisted you either way, i.e., we did indeed have to fight off the Turks, more so because they were closer to the heart of Europe (Rome) once Constantinople had fallen.

 

[jimmy]

It is for you to prove it wrong, not I.

That is nonsense. You can’t simply post something and declare that it is the other persons job to prove that it is an apocryphal source. If the source has no legitimate connection to Cyril and Methodius then you can’t place the burden of proof on the other person. If that is the case then anyone can post anything and it will be a legitimate source.

 

[prodromos]

And I substantiated that claim with a response from an Orthodox, i.e., look back on my posts.

I have looked back, you have never substantiated your claim.

 

[prodromos]

Yes, the representatives (the actual patriarchs could not be there) for Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem all signed as did Constantinople (the actual patriarch was present), and, of course, Rome. As for believing that they signed because of bribery, there is no proof whatsoever for this, in fact, it would seem rather odd considering it took decades before the East officially repudiated Florence.

The Patriarch of Constantinople could not have signed because he died before the signing of the council decrees. The primary source for the council of Florence is Sylvester Syropulus, a Greek deacon who accompanied Patriarch Joseph to the council. That there was bribery there is no doubt, however it was the Emperor who bribed some bishops, not the Pope, although the Eastern Bishops who wholeheartedly supported the union received many benefits from the Pope. Most of the Eastern bishops were literally under house arrest until the Pope was satisfied with the outcome. They had been promised financial support by the Pope which was several times withheld so they had no means to return home. When they were given monies which had been promised, the Emperor kept close tabs on the bishops to ensure none of them left as they saw no hope of coming to any agreement. When agreement was finally reached, it was after more than a year of wearing them down.

 

[patricius79]

The Council was widely rejected by the people and the monks when the delegates returned home and told their story. Many of the delegates repented. From what I’ve read, the emperor stood to the union until the city was conquered.

I honestly would like to know what really happened. I’m getting conflicting information.

 

[Madaglan]

The official repudiation of Florence by the East was in 1472 I believe, as to the source I can’t remember off the top of my head but I will find it for you. I would also like to know what is your source for believing that it was repudiated immediately, i.e., do you have a letter confirming this, i.e., since the patriarchs initially agreed to the decrees then there must be a letter written to Rome stating their repudiation?

p.s. They were not all Greek delegates, i.e, the representative to Antioch was Isidore of Kiev. Also, the patriarch to Alexandria, Philotheus, who could not join the ecumenical council in Florence accepted with joy its decrees:

Philotheus of Alexandria (1435-1459) joyfully received Council of Florence in 9/1/1440 letter: “We decided, together with our Egyptian prelates and our other clergy, to commemorate Your Beatitude before the other patriarchs in all the churches of Christ everywhere in the solemnities of the Mass, as is provided for in the sacred canons” [Fr. Georg Hofmann, S.J., Orientalium documenta minora, docs. 33, 34 qtd. in Gill 323] and “any who did not accept what had been decreed and defined in the holy Synod should be held as heretical” [Fr. Georg Hofmann, S.J., Orientalium documenta minora, doc. 38 qtd. in Gill 323]

thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/

I do not know the exact primary sources relating the rejection of the council by the people. St. Mark of Ephesus probably describes it in his writings.

The Catholic Encyclopedia includes the following:

The erudition of Bessarion and the energy of Isidore of Kiev were chiefly responsible for the reunion of the Churches as accomplished at Florence. The question now was to secure its adoption in the East. For this purpose Isidore of Kiev was sent to Russia as papal legate and cardinal, **but the Muscovite princes, jealous of their religious interdependence, refused to abide by the decrees of the Council of Florence. Isidore was thrown into prison, but afterwards escaped and took refuge in Italy. Nor was any better headway made in the Greek Empire. **The emperor remained faithful, but some of the Greek deputies, intimidated by the discontent prevailing amongst their own people, deserted their position and soon fell back into the surrounding mass of schism. The new emperor, Constantine, brother of John Palaeologus, vainly endeavoured to overcome the opposition of the Byzantine clergy and people. Isidore of Kiev was sent to Constantinople to bring about the desired acceptance of the Florentine “Decretum Unionis” (Laetentur Coeli), but, before he could succeed in his mission, the city fell (1453) before the advancing hordes of Mohammed II.

(source: Van der Essen, Léon. “The Council of Florence.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 6. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 4 Sept. 2010 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm.)

The language, besides giving the Latin perspective, implies that the council was widely rejected in the East and that missions to secure its acceptance failed. The emperor signed on but it appears a significant number of Eastern Christians, including the delegates themselves, rejected the council.

While Latin West and Byzantine East may disagree on the motives, it appears both are in agreement that the council was quickly rejected amongst the Byzantines and never took hold.

 

[patricius79]

Josie, et al.

I found this from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Ecumenical Council of Florence:

In the last session but one (twenty-fourth of Ferrara, eighth of Florence) Giovanni di Ragusa set forth clearly the Latin doctrine in the following terms: "the Latin Church recognizes but one principle, one cause of the Holy Spirit, namely, the Father.
newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm

The article also says:

*When, therefore, at the request of the emperor, Eugene IV promised the Greeks the military and financial help of the Holy See as a consequence of the projected reconciliation, the Greeks declared (3 June, 1439) that they recognized the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from one “principium” (arche) and from one cause (aitia) *

So apparently it is true that the Greeks were bribed

 

[patricius79]

the reason I accept the Papacy despite such scandals, is because I think the Filioque controversy is not legitimate–not a true difference in belief–and because the early Church did believe unanimously that Peter is the Rock on which the Church is founded and similar

 

[josie_L]

Josie, et al.

I found this from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Ecumenical Council of Florence:

In the last session but one (twenty-fourth of Ferrara, eighth of Florence) Giovanni di Ragusa set forth clearly the Latin doctrine in the following terms: "the Latin Church recognizes but one principle, one cause of the Holy Spirit, namely, the Father.
newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm

The article also says:

*When, therefore, at the request of the emperor, Eugene IV promised the Greeks the military and financial help of the Holy See as a consequence of the projected reconciliation, the Greeks declared (3 June, 1439) that they recognized the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from one “principium” (arche) and from one cause (aitia) *

So apparently it is true that the Greeks were bribed

Patricius, reread the quote:

The reunion of the Churches was at last really in sight. When, therefore, at the request of the emperor, Eugene IV promised the Greeks the military and financial help of the Holy See as a consequence of the projected reconciliation, the Greeks declared (3 June, 1439) that they recognized the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from one “principium” (arche) and from one cause (aitia).

The reunion of the Churches was already in sight by the time the Byzantine emperor made his request, i.e., Pope Eugene IV would deliver the military and financial help as a consequence of that reconciliation. This cannot be classified as bribery.

Note: Do you think then that the “Greeks” only concurred as a result of gaining military and financial assistance? Is that what you think the article in question is saying? Moreover, where does Isidore of Kiev (representing Antioch which was already under foreign rule) and Philotheus of Alexandria fit into all this (including Jerusalem)?

 

[josie_L]

I do not know the exact primary sources relating the rejection of the council by the people. St. Mark of Ephesus probably describes it in his writings.

First, I think we are mixing our arguments here, I said originally that the council of Florence was officially rejected by the Greek Church (East) decades later, which is true:

“When the bishops who had signed the decrees of reunion came back, each time they were received with a storm of indignation as betrayers of the Orthodox faith. Each time the reunion was broken almost as soon as it was made. The last act of schism was when Dionysius I of Constantinople (1467-72) summoned a synod and formally repudiated the union (1472).”

ourcatholicfaith.org/theeasternschism.html

My question is why did it take so long for the Greek Church to repudiate the council formally/officially if as it was stipulated the only reason the bishops agreed to Florence was for political reasons? Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the Greek bishops were “bribed”, i.e., Pope Eugene IV wanted to end the schism, and quite frankly was doing so at the expense of the Catholic Church, i.e., financial aid (which no doubt would cost the Church/Catholics much) and war with the Moslems.

The Catholic Encyclopedia includes the following:
(source: Van der Essen, Léon. “The Council of Florence.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 6. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 4 Sept. 2010 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm.)

The language, besides giving the Latin perspective, implies that the council was widely rejected in the East and that missions to secure its acceptance failed. The emperor signed on but it appears a significant number of Eastern Christians, including the delegates themselves, rejected the council.

I don’t doubt that the general populace in question rejected Florence (they were thought to believe the Latins were heretics), but notice the words written in the text about the delegates being “intimidated” by them, i.e., how much of their rejection (after Florence) was due to their fear of the peoples’ reaction? This is why I asked earlier, when in the history of the Church were the laity to hold so much say/influence over the bishops/ delegates concerning an ecumenical council? And moreover, how much did caesaropapism influence Russia in rejecting Florence:

When the Council of Florence for the reunion of the East and the West was held, he left Moscow in company with Bishop Abraham of Suzdal and a large company of Russian prelates and theologians, attended the council, and signed the act of union in 1439. Returning to Russia, he arrived at Moscow in the spring of 1441, and celebrated a grand pontifical liturgy at the cathedral of the Assumption in the Kremlin in the presence of Grand Duke Vasili II and the Russian clergy and nobility. At its close his chief deacon read aloud the decree of the union of the churches. None of the Russian bishops or clergy raised their voices in opposition, but the grand duke loudly upbraided Isidore for turning the Russian people over to the Latins, and shortly afterwards the Russian bishops assembled at Moscow followed their royal master’s command and condemned the union and the action of Isidore. He was imprisoned, but eventually escaped to Lithuania and Kieff, and after many adventures reached Rome.

From this time the two portions of Russia were entirely distinct, the prelates of Moscow bearing the title “Metropolitan of Moscow and all Russia” and those of Kieff, “Metropolitan of Kieff, Halich, and all Russia”. This division and both titles were sanctioned by Pope Pius II. But, Kieff continued Catholic and in communion with the Holy See for nearly a century, while Moscow rejected the union and remained in schism. After Isidore the Muscovites would have no more metropolitans sent to them from Constantinople, and the grand duke thereupon selected the metropolitan. Every effort was then made to have the metropolitans of Moscow independent of the Patriarch of Constantinople. After the Turks had captured Constantinople, the power of its patriarch dwindled still more. When the Bishop of Novgorod declared in 1470 for union with Rome, Philip I, Metropolitan of Moscow, frustrated it, declaring that, for signing the union with Rome at Florence, Constantinople had been punished by the Turks. This hatred of Rome was fomented to such a point that, rather than have one who favoured Rome, a Jew named Zozimas was made Metropolitan of Moscow (1490-4); as, however, he openly supported his brethren, he was finally deposed as an unbeliever. Yet in 1525 the metropolitan Daniel had a correspondence with Pope Clement VII in regard to the Florentine Union, and in 1581 the Jesuit Possevin visited Ivan the Terrible and sought to have him accept the principles of the Union. In 1586, after the death of Ivan, the archimandrite Job was chosen Metropolitan of Moscow by Tsar Feodor under the advice of Boris Godunoff. Just at that time Jeremias II, Patriarch of Constantinople, who was fleeing from Turkish oppression, visited Russia and was received with all the dignity due to his rank. In 1589 he arrived at Moscow and was fittingly received by Boris Godunoff, who promised to take his part against the Turks if possible, and who requested him to create a patriarch for Moscow and Russia, so that the orthodox Church might once more count its five patriarchs as it had done before the break with Rome. Jeremias consented to consecrate Job as the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, and actually made him rank as the third patriarch of the Eastern Church, preceding those of Antioch and Jerusalem. This patriarchate was in fact a royal creation dependent upon the Tsar, its only independence consisting of freedom from the sovereignty of Constantinople.

newadvent.org/cathen/10591b.htm

 

[josie_L]

That is nonsense. You can’t simply post something and declare that it is the other persons job to prove that it is an apocryphal source. If the source has no legitimate connection to Cyril and Methodius then you can’t place the burden of proof on the other person. If that is the case then anyone can post anything and it will be a legitimate source.

Excuse me, Jimmy what academic reason would he have for believing it was aprocryphal and not authenticate?

Note: The quote in question was used in several books (that I know of) thus far: N. Brian-Chaninov, The Russian Church [1931], 46; Church and Infallibility by Butler , 210; and Upon this Rock by Stephen Ray [1999], 177.