Orthodoxy, Papacy

[Nine_Two]

First he said English common law - not US law, second

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.

the first definition was for committing a crime under duress, and third he was looking for a time when Catholic bishops had been similarly forced to act under duress. If you have an issue with the example given you should be taking issue with that, instead of insisting that everyone use the term “duress” under the most extreme definition given in examples.

 

[dvdjs]

First he said English common law - not US law, second the first definition was for committing a crime under duress, and third he was looking for a time when Catholic bishops had been similarly forced to act under duress. If you have an issue with the example given you should be taking issue with that, instead of insisting that everyone use the term “duress” under the most extreme definition given in examples.

First: Is there a difference?
Second: So what? Threatened violence is a common element.
Third: Finally getting to the point, at least my point. I see that you agree regarding his analogy, but I must again object in the strongest terms to your concurrence about “similary forced”. Who was martyred at Florence?

Also, responding to another begged question: I haven’t insisted on any definition at all. I have in fact stipulated that others use the word to mean just about any inducement. And have asked that if people mean something different, then please say so. I don’t want to try to discuss words that are being used in different ways by different people.

This is tiresome: do you have a point?

 

[prodromos]

Second: So what? Threatened violence is a common element.

Not the only common element.

Third: Finally getting to the point, at least my point. I see that you agree regarding his analogy, but I must again object in the strongest terms to your concurrence about “similary forced”. Who was martyred at Florence?

Patriarch Joseph may not have been stabbed or poisoned, but I am certain the circumstances of the Council of Florence played a large part in his illness and death. How many bishops were martyred in England in the 1530’s?

Also, responding to another begged question: I haven’t insisted on any definition at all. I have in fact stipulated that others use the word to mean just about any inducement. And have asked that if people mean something different, then please say so. I don’t want to try to discuss words that are being used in different ways by different people.

You seem to be the only person who wants to narrow the definition of duress to “threat of death” which seems to me a complete red herring to avoid answering my question regarding your sources.

This is tiresome: do you have a point?

It certainly is. Do you have an answer?

 

[prodromos]

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

FInance. They were there at the Pope’s pleasure and the money promised by the Pope for their daily needs was withheld for months. They barely had enough money to feed themselves let alone charter a vessel to return home.

When they finally received money, the Emperor then kept close tabs on everyone to make certain no one left.

You don’t consider that duress?

 

[dvdjs]

FInance. They were there at the Pope’s pleasure and the money promised by the Pope for their daily needs was withheld for months. They barely had enough money to feed themselves let alone charter a vessel to return home.

When they finally received money, the Emperor then kept close tabs on everyone to make certain no one left.

You don’t consider that duress?

Aha. So we have it that “house arrest” was at the pleasure of the byzantine emperor. I take it that he may have also had some part in the financing of the Greek delegation. What were the exact arrangements for food and stipends?

Do I consider this duress - sufficient to vitiate any contractual arrangements? If they really were prohibited from leaving unless they agreed to specific terms, sure. If they were prohibited from leaving until the council was concluded, no. Mark of Ephesus got home without agreeing to anything.

Again, what is the point?

 

[dvdjs]

N
Patriarch Joseph may not have been stabbed or poisoned, but I am certain the circumstances of the Council of Florence played a large part in his illness and death. How many bishops were martyred in England in the 1530’s?

There were many Catholic martyrs. The threat of extreme violence was real. If you are taking up the point of Hesychios that the bishops, except one, caved - what does that prove? A lack of duress? What then of Florence?

You seem to be the only person who wants to narrow the definition of duress to “threat of death” which seems to me a complete red herring to avoid answering my question regarding your sources.

What are you reading? My posts are to the extreme contrary. I object to this. I think that the comparison of the “duress” at Florence with that of England in the 1530’s is grotesque.

It certainly is. Do you have an answer.

Baloney. The grotesque comparison was made by someone else, not me. I have objected to it. That is my point. And I continue to ask others, who seem to want to twist mine into something else, what their point is.

I have no source for the lack of martyrs at Florence. It is one of those hard to source negatives. All that I can offer is a meager argument from silence, I am quite sure, however, that if the Pope was killing off dissenters, he would be invoked by EO’s more often then Honorius, and the feast of the martyrs would be well known.

 

[dvdjs]

There were many Catholic martyrs. The threat of extreme violence was real. If you are taking up the point of Hesychios that the bishops, except one, caved - what does that prove? A lack of duress? What then of Florence?

What are you reading? My posts are to the extreme contrary. I object to this. I think that the comparison of the “duress” at Florence with that of England in the 1530’s is grotesque.
Baloney. The grotesque comparison was made by someone else, not me. I have objected to it. That is my point. And I continue to ask others what is their.

I have no source for the lack of martyrs at Florence. It is one of those hard to source negatives. All that I can offer is a meager argument from silence, I am quite sure, however, that if the Pope was killing off dissenters, he would be invoked by EO’s more often then Honorius, and the feast of the martyrs would be well known.

 

[prodromos]

Aha. So we have it that “house arrest” was at the pleasure of the byzantine emperor. I take it that he may have also had some part in the financing of the Greek delegation. What were the exact arrangements for food and stipends?

If you really are interested then I suggest you get yourself a copy of the book I mentioned earlier. I don’t presently have the time to read through it again just to answer your questions

Do I consider this duress - sufficient to vitiate any contractual arrangements? If they really were prohibited from leaving unless they agreed to specific terms, sure. If they were prohibited from leaving until the council was concluded, no.

The only way the Emperor got what he wanted was if the Pope got what he wanted, so the ending of the council was dependant upon agreeing to specific terms.

Mark of Ephesus got home without agreeing to anything.

St Mark of Ephesus, intercede for us.

 

[prodromos]

I have no source for the lack of martyrs at Florence. It is one of those hard to source negatives.

I have not asked for a source regarding martyrs, I have asked for a source which provides you with the confidence to state:

One can always try a duress argument, but it is a real stretch for Greeks at Florence.

It is you who narrowed the definition of duress, not Hesychios. He provided the 1530’s as an example of duress but he did not restrict it to that.

I am now satisfied that you have no source. Thank you.

 

[dvdjs]

I have not asked for a source regarding martyrs, I have asked for a source which provides you with the confidence to state:It is you who narrowed the definition of duress, not Hesychios. He provided the 1530’s as an example of duress but he did not restrict it to that.

I am now satisfied that you have no source. Thank you.

I still haven’t the vaguest idea what your point is. Would you mind, since you are so quick to accuse others of avoiding questions, clarifying? Only if you do could I being to respond to your point, whatever it is.

I will repeat my point, which was not addressed to you at all. My objection was to the manner in which Hesychios compared “duress” at Florence to that of England in the 1530’s. The latter was a time of martyrdom. The former was not. I restricted my remarks to this issue, because that is the issue that demanded comment. This warped sense of equivalence is a recurrent theme of his posts - and in other contexts, like comparing coercion in the liquidation of Greek Catholic churches during the Soviet era with the Union of Brest - it is even more disturbing. You may feel that I should be writing more broadly, but the scope of my comments is in fact for me to decide.

You may find it amusing to twist my objections to his post and that issue to mean something else. But whatever it is that you have in mind, it is not, to the best of my knowledge, what I was writing about. That is precisely why I asked for you to clarify what you meant (something you have yet to do), so that we would avoid this inane silliness of arguing about matters that involve words that are being used by different posters in different ways.

I would welcome a clarification of your point.

 

[prodromos]

In your response to Hesychios which I quoted above, you dismissed duress out of hand as an argument for the Greek bishops agreeing to the Latin terms at Florence. Since my source makes it clear that they were under duress, I asked if you could tell me which source(s) you had which enabled you to state so confidently to the contrary.

 

[dvdjs]

In your response to Hesychios which I quoted above, you dismissed duress out of hand as an argument for the Greek bishops agreeing to the Latin terms at Florence. Since my source makes it clear that they were under duress, I asked if you could tell me which source(s) you had which enabled you to state so confidently to the contrary.

Puhlease, don’t play games proof-texting my own posts without their context, which made absolutely clear - as repeated in subsequent posts - the sense of “duress” that I was objecting to. I remain confident that the sense raised by his comparison was disingenuous and grotesque.

 

[dvdjs]

In your response to Hesychios which I quoted above, you dismissed duress out of hand as an argument for the Greek bishops agreeing to the Latin terms at Florence. Since my source makes it clear that they were under duress, I asked if you could tell me which source(s) you had which enabled you to state so confidently to the contrary.

I understand that you want to use “duress” as an argument for the Greek bishops agreeing to the Latin terms at Florence. Good.

I think that same argument readily appiles to the Muscovite rejection of Florence, following the Czar’s imprisonment of of Isadore, and to the Greek’s repudiation of it under the Sultan.

 

[Bluegoat]

Why not just say there were things influencing their decisions that should not have been part of the decision making process.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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.

It’s clear to me, too, manualman. The wonder of it is, there are quite a few very intelligent, sincere Orthodox believers here who skate right past it without a second glance.

 

[Nine_Two]

I understand that you want to use “duress” as an argument for the Greek bishops agreeing to the Latin terms at Florence. Good.

I think that same argument readily appiles to the Muscovite rejection of Florence, following the Czar’s imprisonment of of Isadore, and to the Greek’s repudiation of it under the Sultan.

So now that you’ve finally been forced to admit duress doesn’t mean threat of death, now you’re trying for equivalency to write off this sin of the Papacy. “So what if they were under duress, so were these people.” Isidore was imprisoned, can you prove that influenced anyone else to move against Florence? Seems to me he was imprisoned because because Florence was considered so outrageous - by everyone.

 

[steve_b]

I was asked for evidence that Popes don’t think they have to act collegially.

you made the following claim

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6992394#post6992394

It’s all over. I know that’s frustrating, but just about any papal action demonstrates it.
Look for instance at Humanae Vitae. This is regardless of whether the position found there is right or wrong. The point is that the Pope issued the document on his own authority, and it’s binding on the whole Church, whether or not it’s infallible.

responding to your combined responses

Was HV penned in a vaccuum? No.
Did it have zero support by the bishops? No

I think you overstate your position…at least in this case.
c:

Because Irenaeus’s position appears to have been that they shouldn’t be excommunicated at all.

Did I or the quote I used suggest otherwise? No
c:

I never said your source contradicted the primary source–but it goes beyond it. It puts a spin on Irenaeus’s actions in order to make his disagreement with Victor seem less.

Where?

Here’s the quote again

“St. Irenæus, while condemning the Quartodeciman practice, nevertheless reproaches Pope Victor (c. 189-99) with having excommunicated the Asiatics too precipitately and with not having followed the moderation of his predecessors. The question thus debated was therefore primarily whether Easter was to be kept on a Sunday, or whether Christians should observe the Holy Day of the Jews, the fourteenth of Nisan, which might occur on any day of the week. Those who kept Easter with the Jews were called Quartodecimans or terountes (observants); but even in the time of Pope Victor this usage hardly extended beyond the churches of Asia Minor. After the pope’s strong measures the Quartodecimans seem to have gradually dwindled away. Origen in the “Philosophumena” (VIII, xviii) seems to regard them as a mere handful of wrong-headed nonconformists.”
c:

Not quite. They all decided that Easter should be celebrated on Sunday, and on “no other day.” Whether that “condemns” the Quartodecimans depends on whether unity in this matter is seen as a necessity or not.

• ergo, unity was considered necessary. The Q practice was condemned.

c:

It would appear to condemn the Quartodecimans, which is why Pope Victor proceeded to act on that assumption. But Irenaeus’s letter (and Eusebius says that he wasn’t alone) took a different approach, arguing that even though the Asian practice was less than desirable and differed from that of the rest of the Christian world, it should not be tampered with because the Asian Christians had good reason to believe it to be apostolic. The principle is that a rite that has been continuously practiced for as long as we are aware of should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Their practice was condemned.
c:

The implication of 3.24.18 is that Irenaeus succeeded, but it isn’t entirely clear.

Here’s the Eusebius source you quoted ([here (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm)* (chaps. 23-25)*

we’ll refer to this source in a minute
c:

Actually Eusebius says that he “tried to.” To me that indicates that without the consent of the rest of the Church his action was not considered binding. Note the difference between your language and Eusebius. You say that Victor excommunicated them and the other bishops tried to persuade him to take it back.

From Eusebius (ch 24 [here (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm)* )*

1. Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.

Did Victor excommunicate them? Y / N
c:

Eusebius says that Victor tried to excommunicate and the other bishops rebuked him sharply!

Eusebius as you can see above, says Victor excommunicated them. Therefore the other bishops were trying to get Victor to reverse himself.
c:

You have a different ecclesiology than the one reflected in Eusebius’s account.

Nope
c:

No, I pointed out that the ancient sources do not support some of the claims made in your modern secondary source. Nothing precipitate about it.

Now you know I didn’t overstate nor did my quote. You responded precipitately

 

[dvdjs]

So now that you’ve finally been forced to admit duress doesn’t mean threat of death, now you’re trying for equivalency to write off this sin of the Papacy. “So what if they were under duress, so were these people.” Isidore was imprisoned, can you prove that influenced anyone else to move against Florence? Seems to me he was imprisoned because because Florence was considered so outrageous - by everyone.

Look, I am not interested in games. I spoke in a context and made myself and my intentions clear, repeatedly. If you feel that you want to write about what I was “forced” to do go ahead. No doubt I am under duress, which obviously can mean most anything.

The reality is this there was a serious life threatening duress in England of the 1530’s but not at the council of Florence. The comparison is an afront to martyrs.

Once we move beyond the context of this comparison we go down the slippery slope.
How much “duress” mitigates what behavior? How much voids a contract. How much explains caving wherever it occurs, and how many decision can be viewed as caving owing to the presence of some measure of “duress”?

The EOs make excuses for their conduct at Florence. Round up the usual suspects: the Pope and the Latins, even though their emperor was involved, according to Prodromos, in applying the "duress’ suffered there. It has been hard to get any EO posters to say specifically what this claim of duress is supposed to explain, but it does seem to ignore the salient fact that the bishop in opposition was unphased by this duress.

As to you comments on the situation on Moscow - a typical fancy flight into mythological history. I have already referred to an short essay by an Orthodox bishop that dispels your view. Was the imprisonment of Isadore required to gain the consent of others, under the duress of the threat of imprisonment? Probably not. It was probably sufficient that the czar had decided. Is life under the czar inherently a life of duress?

The problem is that once you go down the slippery slope of rationalizing misconduct by duress that is apparently resistible, it raises questions about all sorts of decision reached under duress. A treacherous argument really.

Overall, I think that the simplest explanation for these affairs - all of theme - is the clout of the ruling autocrat in the Orthodox world. The Emperor wanted union at Florence and the bishops complied. The Sultan wanted poor relations between his Christians and Christians of the West, and the union was repudiated. Ditto the czar. A common thread. It’s not really a symphony anymore when the state is calling the tune on matters of faith and morals

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m not the one playing word games here. Don’t even try to pretend your argument has been consistent here and you weren’t playing on “definitions”, everyone can go back and see your posts.

 

[dvdjs]

I’m not the one playing word games here. Don’t even try to pretend your argument has been consistent here and you weren’t playing on “definitions”, everyone can go back and see your posts.

You are projecting. I am the one who has asked for people for definitions and responded to requests for definition, and discussed levels of duress, and what it might exonerate. If you mean like 1530’s England, that one is level of duress which can explain caving. If you mean incarceration that is another. And if you mean the emperor made me stay to the end of the council, that is a stretch really to compare to things more serious, and exculpates little. And if you simply say or read “duress” without considering a measure, or without indicating what it explains, then you are not thinking about crux of the matter and just playing word games.