Orthodoxy, Papacy

[dvdjs]

According to the deacon who accompanied Patriarch Joseph, the Greek bishops were indeed under duress at Florence. Syropulus was right there for the whole duration of the council and wrote first hand about what they were put through. Who are your sources and what places them before Syropulus in your opinion?

Do you and your source mean the same thing by “duress” as Hesychios - an imminent threat that mitigates legal culpability. Are you making the same comparison that suggests that the duress was at the level of risking being put to death? If not, then you are talking about "duress"with of a different meaning. So please define your terms, before we get into a discussion which is confused by disagreement over terms.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Sure they did. You may like to reread post #856 and think about the difference between “the” in your writing and “some” in the CEncyc. What can be said, in the absence of public opinion polls on the matters, is that, while controversial, the union persisted in the Byzantine Empire until it was repudiated under the Sultan.

As to the Russians: I have called your attention many times to the writing of then Bishop Tikhon of the OCADOW (on the Indiana list) that dispels this common story as total myth. In Muscovy, the rejection was the unilateral action of the Czar, period. In Rus, the union held formally until the late 1400’s and informally into the 1500’s; within a century it would be reprised as the union of Brest.

Finally on the invidious comparison between England of the 1530’s and the Council of Florence: This is not atypical for you. You have written similarly about the Unias. It is as though you would consider it as duress most foul if a Catholic were to offer a ham sandwich to an EO - equal to the murder and mayhem executed by EO’s against Greek Catholics. I will continue to point out that these disgraceful comparisons are disgusting.

Dear DVDJS,

As an Eastern Catholic, I think that all religious movement between Catholicism and Orthodoxy was done by the “higher ups” and no one ever asked the common person in the pew whether or not he or she wanted to go in the direction the prince or bishop was taking them at the time.

In 1596 when the Union of Brest took place, the people, from what we can gather, saw no real difference and indeed continued to call themselves “Orthodox Christians.” When outsiders asked them why they now commemorated the Pope, the answer was often given, “It must be because the Pope has finally returned to Orthodoxy!”

In truth, only the Greek-Catholic Metropolitan of Kyiv commemorated the Pope in the diptychs - otherwise the Pope’s name was never heard at the local parish level (before the Zamoysky Synod which mandated frequent papal commemorations in all parishes).

The early Greek-Catholics further demonstrated their Orthodox identity when they refused to say the Filioque in the Creed (which was being increasingly imposed by Roman Catholic Poland and this through police pressure).

Police would go out to the EC parishes to make sure the Filioque was said during the Creed. But the EC’s would say something similar to avoid saying the Filioque. The Filioque in Slavonic is “I Syna” but the people devised “Istynno” that the police thought was the same. And “istynno” means “truly” or “The Spirit proceeds from the Father . . . truly.”

Who said Eastern Catholic life is dull?

Alex

 

[rinnie]

Give us a source so we can see for ourselves. Seems to me that if that were true Catholic apologist would bring it out ad nauseam to help prove their position yet this is the first time I’ve ever heard it.

Why you would only disagree anyway. Look it up yourself. (doubt if it would help). So if you want to see it for yourself look it up for yourself. And you will see that Greek in the time of Jesus was Koine Greek which differs from Ancient Greek! ANd it is there you will find your answer.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Why you would only disagree anyway. Look it up yourself. (doubt if it would help). So if you want to see it for yourself look it up for yourself. And you will see that Greek in the time of Jesus was Koine Greek which differs from Ancient Greek! ANd it is there you will find your answer.

So in other words you don’t have a source?

Have you noticed that so far no one on this thread has agreed with you? Are you the only person on CAF smart enough to figure this out?

 

[Nine_Two]

You are right. I GIVE UP!! It is impossible. It is the difference between attic greek and koine greek.

No it isn’t.

Not that Attic Greek has anything to do with it, since it was transformed into Koine centuries before Christ.

 

[Nine_Two]

Why you would only disagree anyway. Look it up yourself. (doubt if it would help). So if you want to see it for yourself look it up for yourself. And you will see that Greek in the time of Jesus was Koine Greek which differs from Ancient Greek! ANd it is there you will find your answer.

How’s Liddell and Scott Ninth Edition for a source? It has entries for every Greek word used between 500 B.C (Attic), and 1200 A.D. (Medieval). In that period is of course Koine.

πέτρα , Ion. and Ep. πέτρη , h(,
A. rock; freq. of cliffs, ledges, etc. by the sea, “λισσὴ αἰπεῖά τε εἰς ἅλα πέτρη” Od.3.293, cf. 4.501, etc.; χῶρος λεῖος πετράων free from rocks, of a beach, 5.443 ; “π. ἠλίβατος . . ἁλὸς ἐγγὺς ἐοῦσα” Il.15.618, etc.; χοιρὰς π. Pi.P.10.52; also, rocky peak or ridge, αἰγίλιψ π. Il.9.15, etc.; “ἠλίβατος” 16.35, etc.; λιττὰς π. Corinn.Supp.1.30, cf.A.Supp.796 (lyr.); π. Λενκάς, ?ωλενίη, etc., Od.24.11, Il.11.757, etc.; π. σύνδρομοι, Συμπληγάδες, Pi.P.4.209, E.Med.1264(lyr.); πρὸς πέτραις ὑψηλοκρήμνοις, of Caucasus, A.Pr.4, cf. 31, 56, al.; π. Δελφίς, π. δίλοφος, of Parnassus, S.OT464(lyr.), Ant.1126(lyr.); “π. Κωρυκίς” A.Eu.22; π. Κεκροπία, of the Acropolis, E.Ion936.
2. π. γλαφυρή a hollow rock, i.e. a cave, Il.2.88, cf. 4.107; σπέος κοιλῇ ὑπὸ π. Hes. Th.301; δίστομος π. cave in the rock with a double entrance, S.Ph.16, cf. 937; κατηρεφεῖς αὐτῇ τῇ π. Pl.Criti.116b; “π. ἀντρώδης” X.An.4.3.11; “τόπος κύκλῳ πέτραις περιεχόμενος” IG42(1).122.21 (Epid.); ἕως τῆς π. down to virgin rock, PCair.Zen.172.14 (iii B.C.), OGI672 (Egypt, i A. D.), cf. Ev.Matt.16.18.
3. mass of rock or boulder, Od.9.243, 484, Hes.Th.675 ; “πέτρας κυλινδομένα φλόξ” Pi.P.1.23 ; “ἐκυλίνδουν πέτρας” X.An.4.2.20, cf. Plb.3.53.4.
4. stone as material, π. λαρτία, Τηΐα, SIG581.97 (Crete, iii/ii B. C.), 996.13 (Smyrna, i A. D.): distd. from πέτρος (q. v.), which is v.l. in X.l.c.; πέτρᾳ shd. be read in S.Ph.272 ; the distn. is minimized by Gal.12.194.
II. prov., οὐκ ἀπὸ δρυὸς οὐδ᾽ ἀπὸ πέτρης, etc. (v. δρῦς); as a symbol of firmness, “ὁ δ᾽ ἐστάθη ἠΰτε π. ἔμπεδον” Od.17.463; of hard-heartedness, “ἐκ πέτρας εἰργασμένος” A.Pr.244; “ἁλίαν π. ἢ κῦμα λιταῖς ὢς ἱκετεύων” E.Andr. 537 (anap.); cf. “πέτρος” 1.2. (Written πε-τε-ρα in a text with musical accompaniment, Pae.Delph.5.)

Nope, nothing about father.

You can look for yourself perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pe%2Ftra&la=greek#lexicon

 

[manualman]

Wiser ones than I have already posted. But personally, I find it hard to believe that God has permitted a situation to arise that requires a phD in history in order to unravel the truth.

As I understand it, the EO consider the bishop of Rome to posess no greater authority than that held by any other patriarch, except perhaps a sort of “Speaker of the House” form of first among equals.

To anyone struggling with the issue, I recommend simply reading the Gospels and Acts and taking notes every time Peter appears. Does Jesus really seem to be treating Peter the same as the others or in a way that connotates a mere ceremonial headship, or does Jesus appear to be placing Peter in a unique role of greater responsibility than the other 11?

The answer sure seemed clear to me.

 

[prodromos]

You are right. I GIVE UP!! It is impossible. It is the difference between attic greek and koine greek.

You are confusing “Πέτρος” with “Πατρός”, two very distinct words. One is spelled with epsilon, the other with alpha. One has the stress on the first syllable, the other on the second. They may look very similiar but they are in fact very different words with distinct etymologies. I suspect that you have no practical knowledge of Greek based on what you have been posting, while several of those responding to your claims are well versed in Greek. In future you should consider whether you are actually qualified to write on a particular subject and therefore remain silent. One, because if there is no one knowledgable to correct you, you can lead others into error, and two, because you look like a complete idiot when you are corrected, especially when you hang onto your error with the tenacity of a petball (sorry, that should have been pitbull)

John

 

[prodromos]

Do you and your source mean the same thing by “duress” as Hesychios - an imminent threat that mitigates legal culpability.

Pretty much.

Are you making the same comparison that suggests that the duress was at the level of risking being put to death?

No. They were held under the equivalent of “house arrest” for over a year, far from home with no prospect of being able to leave until a ‘union’ was acheived.

If not, then you are talking about "duress"with of a different meaning.

I do not agree.

So please define your terms, before we get into a discussion which is confused by disagreement over terms.

Why don’t you just answer the question. Who are your sources and what in your opinion makes them more reliable that Syropulus?

John

 

[patricius79]

Do not confuse bribery with incentive (I have no doubt that this offer by the pope acted as an incentive, but the bishops still had a choice, i.e., if they thought the decrees issued were truly heretical than they were free to reject them; there was no force), i.e., recollect that the emperor’s motives for entering into union were not the same as the pope’s.

Read post # 860 directed at Madaglan.

That may be correct. Also, I read post 860: as much as I could process. Interesting.

I know that Chrysostom, commenting on Acts 1:15-25–said that Peter held the same authority to ordain as the rest of the leaders did collectively, and that Peter was the “Head of the Apostles”

 

[Nine_Two]

You are confusing “Πέτρος” with “Πατρός”, two very distinct words. One is spelled with epsilon, the other with alpha. One has the stress on the first syllable, the other on the second. They may look very similiar but they are in fact very different words with distinct etymologies. I suspect that you have no practical knowledge of Greek based on what you have been posting, while several of those responding to your claims are well versed in Greek. In future you should consider whether you are actually qualified to write on a particular subject and therefore remain silent. One, because if there is no one knowledgable to correct you, you can lead others into error, and two, because you look like a complete idiot when you are corrected, especially when you hang onto your error with the tenacity of a petball (sorry, that should have been pitbull)

John

And, to add to that. Πατρός is the same in both Attic and Koine. Πέτρος is the masculine version of πέτρα which is also the same in both Attic and Koine.

 

[prodromos]

I know that Chrysostom, commenting on Acts 1:15-25–said that Peter held the same authority to ordain as the rest of the leaders did collectively

Could you provide the quote? I am afraid I am having difficulty finding it.

John

 

[dvdjs]

Pretty much.
No. They were held under the equivalent of “house arrest” for over a year, far from home with no prospect of being able to leave until a ‘union’ was acheived.
I do not agree.
Why don’t you just answer the question. Who are your sources and what in your opinion makes them more reliable that Syropulus?

Why on earth would you want a question answered before the terms used in the question are properly defined?

My objection was to the idea that the “duress” involved the imminent fear of loss of life. There is no grounds for that, even in the most polemical accounts.

As to “house arrest”: why could the Greeks not leave, who held them captive?

 

[Nine_Two]

Since when does duress mean you fear for your life? What dictionary are you using?

 

[dvdjs]

Dear DVDJS,

As an Eastern Catholic, I think that all religious movement between Catholicism and Orthodoxy was done by the “higher ups” and no one ever asked the common person in the pew whether or not he or she wanted to go in the direction the prince or bishop was taking them at the time.

In 1596 when the Union of Brest took place, the people, from what we can gather, saw no real difference and indeed continued to call themselves “Orthodox Christians.” When outsiders asked them why they now commemorated the Pope, the answer was often given, “It must be because the Pope has finally returned to Orthodoxy!”

In truth, only the Greek-Catholic Metropolitan of Kyiv commemorated the Pope in the diptychs - otherwise the Pope’s name was never heard at the local parish level (before the Zamoysky Synod which mandated frequent papal commemorations in all parishes).

The early Greek-Catholics further demonstrated their Orthodox identity when they refused to say the Filioque in the Creed (which was being increasingly imposed by Roman Catholic Poland and this through police pressure).

Police would go out to the EC parishes to make sure the Filioque was said during the Creed. But the EC’s would say something similar to avoid saying the Filioque. The Filioque in Slavonic is “I Syna” but the people devised “Istynno” that the police thought was the same. And “istynno” means “truly” or “The Spirit proceeds from the Father . . . truly.”

Who said Eastern Catholic life is dull?

Alex

Hi Alex. Been a some time; hope you are doing well.

I agree with your basic premise - we all would like to be left to do things our way. Living in no man’s land at the crossroads of empires didn’t help make that possible.

On our side of the mountains, I never heard of any police action on the filioque. We had more pressure to be assimilated as Hungarians.

I think your story about the Pope is cute. Sadly, that story has been used by certain folks who still cling to the idea that those who left the ECC in early times in the US, had the right to keep the church property, since they never thought that they were Catholic, but thought the Pope had converted. Whatever validity the story has, probably dates to a far earlier time than our early years here.

 

[dvdjs]

Since when does duress mean you fear for your life? What dictionary are you using?

It’s all in the thread. Hesychios brought up the English law definition, and compared the situation to one that produced many martyrs. I also stipulated that many think that any charity shown could be taken as sinister and called duress. But it was the usage of Hesychios that I objected to.

 

[Nine_Two]

I assume you mean post #686. I see nothing in that post that defines duress as fearing for your life, although that certainly would be duress under any definition, that is not the limit of the definition.

If it is not post 686 that you mean (which doesn’t support your argument), would you mind telling me which post you do mean?

 

[dvdjs]

I assume you mean post #686. I see nothing in that post that defines duress as fearing for your life, although that certainly would be duress under any definition, that is not the limit of the definition.

If it is not post 686 that you mean (which doesn’t support your argument), would you mind telling me which post you do mean?

No. Post 868, which I guess is what you meant. Read up on the law, and on the the 1530’s. You might also read my response, which did differentiate between the explicit and implicit content of the post.

What do you think constitutes the “duress” that exculpates those who caved at Florence, and what do you think that it explains?

 

[Nine_Two]

No. Post 868, which I guess is what you meant. Read up on the law, and on the the 1530’s. You might also read my response, which did differentiate between the explicit and implicit content of the post.

The 1530s has nothing to do with the definition of duress. Certainly the bishops were under duress, that doesn’t mean duress is defined by their condition.

Why don’t you point me to where you’re finding your definition of the law so I can read up on it. The legal dictionary I just looked up also agreed that it doesn’t necessarily involve fear for ones life.

So that’s four dictionaries I’ve looked it up in, one legal, the other three containing definitions which were defined as being in legal terms, and all four said the exact same thing.

So tell me where you’re getting your definition from, because it must be somewhere.

 

[dvdjs]

The 1530s has nothing to do with the definition of duress. Certainly the bishops were under duress, that doesn’t mean duress is defined by their condition.

Why don’t you point me to where you’re finding your definition of the law so I can read up on it. The legal dictionary I just looked up also agreed that it doesn’t necessarily involve fear for ones life.

So that’s four dictionaries I’ve looked it up in, one legal, the other three containing definitions which were defined as being in legal terms, and all four said the exact same thing.

So tell me where you’re getting your definition from, because it must be somewhere.

Having fun?

To answer the question that you begged: I did not define “duress”. My comments revolved around Hesychios’s introduction of the legal meaning with his illustration by analogy to events in the 1530’s. If you think that that sense of “duress” is too restrictive, take it up with him. My issue is that it is a grotesque analogy.

I did not track or bookmark the legal sites that I surfed, but here is something from USlegal.com:

In criminal law, duress is a defense to a crime if the defendant was compelled or coerced to commit the crime by some human agency, prior to a safe avenue of escape being available, under a threat of serious imminent harm to the defendant or others, and the crime is of a lesser magnitude than the harm threatened. Duress consists of threatening conduct which produced the following three elements in the accused:

1. a reasonable fear;
2. the fear must be of an immediate [imminent] harm; and,
3. that harm must be death or serious bodily harm.

Duress is a also a defense asserted against enforcement of a contract. It is an illegal actual or a threatened violence or restraint of someone, to compel him to enter into a contract, or to excuse performance of a contract. A legal constraint, or the threats only of doing that which the party using them had a right to do, does not invalidate the contract.

Duress is usually asserted in a defendant’s answer to a complaint seeking to enforce a contract. It may also be a reason for a person to seek a declaratory judgment to declare a contract void or unenforceable. Many states have enacted laws, which vary by state, allowing a buyer to cancel certain types of consumer contracts, such as those solicited at their home, within a certain number of days after signing. These laws are typically motivated by concerns over high-pressure sales tactics which fall short of duress, but usually allow cancellation for any reason if the cancellation is made within the guidelines of the law.

I suppose it would be interesting to sort through case law to determine the level of threat and its imminence that would mitigate legal culpability. But I am not sure about the point of the effort, so I ask again:

what do you think constitutes the “duress” at that exculpates those who caved at Florence, and what do you think that it explains?