Papal Supremacy

[dcointin]

So in other words, there never was an authentic reunion.

That’s correct. I don’t know much more about the council though, so if anyone else has more details to add I’d love to hear it.

 

[Peter_J]

This may seem out of the blue but I need to ask something regarding the Council of Florence. Is it true that this council ended the Schism even though it was short lived?

I have heard this for awhile now.

I think you could say that there a union did take place, however short lived. But since only a small number of Orthodox were part of the union, I wouldn’t say that the schism was ended (even temporarily). That would be like saying that the schism would be over if I converted to Orthodoxy.

 

[Peter_J]

That’s correct. I don’t know much more about the council though, so if anyone else has more details to add I’d love to hear it.

EWTN’s website has some discussion of the Council of Florence. steve b gave one link earlier; another is Council of Florence. (I don’t make any promises about the accuracy of everything Dr. Dragani says there – in fact, based on conversations with Orthodox friends I would say that some of his statements are disputable.)

 

[steve_b]

EWTN’s website has some discussion of the Council of Florence. steve b gave one link earlier; another is Council of Florence. (I don’t make any promises about the accuracy of everything Dr. Dragani says there – in fact, based on conversations with Orthodox friends I would say that some of his statements are disputable.)

The link i gave, provided the documents of the council.

 

[steve_b]

So in other words, there never was an authentic reunion.

At the close of the council, there was an agreement. The council was over and the Catholic Church was understanding there was agreement after many years in council over different locations. They had no clue that when the Eastern bishops returned home, they got a negative blast from the rank and file so those bishops who signed, disavowed their signatures. That had to be a huge disappointment.

As for the issue of the West not coming to the aid of the East regarding Islam, a sort of quid pro quo, you sign the agreement we’ll help you against the Muslims, the sentiment as you can see was not good in the East towards the West. And as we see there was a very short agreement then it was rescinded. Besides, In Constantinople at this time the phrase that encapsulated the East was “better the Turban of the Sultan than the tiara of the pope”. . So put yourself into this time period. You’re a Westerner. You’ve familiar with all this drama and intrigue and bad faith. Would you volunteer to join the army, leave your family unprotected, so you could put your neck on the line ( most assuradly you’d lose your life in this endeavor) saving people who don’t like you and don’t want you to be there? Would you do it?

 

[Peter_J]

As for the issue of the West not coming to the aid of the East regarding Islam,

I don’t think anyone in the East was surprised that the West didn’t give them military support – it was already clear during the council that aid depended on union.

 

[Nine_Two]

I don’t think anyone in the East was surprised that the West didn’t give them military support – it was already clear during the council that aid depended on union.

I think the Emperor was. He did become Catholic in hope of help.

 

[Ignatios]

I think the Emperor was. He did become Catholic in hope of help.

…And that is why there is a widespread belief that the Empire had fell and ceased to be, where the Church remained.

 

[Ignatios]

I don’t think anyone in the East was surprised that the West didn’t give them military support – it was already clear during the council that aid depended on union.

Actually, it is because the union was depended on aid ( from the Orthodox point of view) and not on the true Faith, was rejected.

 

[Peter_J]

I think the Emperor was. He did become Catholic in hope of help.

I don’t think even he was surprised by the lack of aid. Consider: if he had thought that just himself becoming Catholic was enough to get aid from the West, then why was he so insistent that the bishops sign in the first place?

 

[steve_b]

Actually, it is because the union was depended on aid ( from the Orthodox point of view) and not on the true Faith, was rejected.

Is that really how the EO saw it? All those years of council, in several locations, to have it all boil down to Western military aid to help the East if an agreement was signed? Why even put the effort into a council?

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Ignatios
Actually, it is because the union was depended on aid ( from the Orthodox point of view) and not on the true Faith, was rejected.

A few considerations: I believe that the emperor had some influence in the decision of which Eastern bishops attended the council; so presumably there were some bishops there who (like the emperor) were primarily interested in getting military aid. But at the same time, it’s important not to overgeneralize; some of the Eastern bishops held out longer than others, and some fled rather than sign.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t think anyone in the East was surprised that the West didn’t give them military support – it was already clear during the council that aid depended on union.

I should have said “I don’t think anyone who was at the council was surprised that the West didn’t give the East military support”.

 

[Ignatios]

Is that really how the EO saw it? All those years of council, in several locations, to have it all boil down to Western military aid to help the East if an agreement was signed? Why even put the effort into a council?

Plain and simple, the Emperor who was Orthodox, was ready to compromise the faith in order to achieve a military aid, The Church the Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem along with St. Mark of Ephesus along with the Orthodox faithful rejected to compromise the faith and when they heard that if you do not compromise and submit to the Pope of Rome the Turks will take over Constantinople, they said " “Rather the turban of the Sultan that the tiara of the Pope” or in another word, we would rather die than compromising the Faith, BUT God had different plan HE saved the Church and she still exist until today but the Emperor and his empire that he was trying to save on the expense of GOD’s Faith has since gone.

I see that Peter J got it right as well.

 

[steve_b]

A few considerations: I believe that the emperor had some influence in the decision of which Eastern bishops attended the council; so presumably there were some bishops there who (like the emperor) were primarily interested in getting military aid. But at the same time, it’s important not to overgeneralize; some of the Eastern bishops held out longer than others, and some fled rather than sign.

Just thinking outloud.

• we’ve seen past councils meet, where obviously no prerequsite number of bishops were required to attend for there to be a decision for the entire Church. For example, some early councils (of the 1st 7) didn’t have any or just a few Western bishops attend, yet by approving them, the pope made those councils “ecumenical” i.e. binding on the whole Church.
• Too bad the emperor got involved at the end, with the council of Florence.
• The Muscovite princes wanted to protect their religious interdependence so they rejected Florence. Even today, especially in Moscow, according to Cardinal Kasper, it’s questionable the RO recognize primacy of honor for Constantinople either, i.e. their primacy of honor for the ecumenical patriarch is questionable. zenit.org/article-3885?l=english The RO make up ~90% +/- of EO today. Is THAT the key to them? The smallness of all the other EO churches vs them? Moscow should be the new Constantinople?..

 

[steve_b]

Plain and simple, the Emperor who was Orthodox, was ready to compromise the faith in order to achieve a military aid, The Church the Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem along with St. Mark of Ephesus along with the Orthodox faithful rejected to compromise the faith and when they heard that if you do not compromise and submit to the Pope of Rome the Turks will take over Constantinople, they said " “Rather the turban of the Sultan that the tiara of the Pope” or in another word, we would rather die than compromising the Faith, BUT God had different plan HE saved the Church and she still exist until today but the Emperor and his empire that he was trying to save on the expense of GOD’s Faith has since gone.

I see that Peter J got it right as well.

There’s 12 parts to the council that took place over many years (1431 - 1445). If one includes some aborted efforts that go back to 1423. You can start reading in 1431 or scroll forward to 1438 for Florence. part 1 (1431) starts here. dailycatholic.org/history/17ecume1.htm

I’m thinking you might want to read some of this. It’s a little more involved than your particular version.

 

[Peter_J]

Plain and simple, the Emperor who was Orthodox, was ready to compromise the faith in order to achieve a military aid, The Church the Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem along with St. Mark of Ephesus along with the Orthodox faithful rejected to compromise the faith and when they heard that if you do not compromise and submit to the Pope of Rome the Turks will take over Constantinople, they said “Rather the turban of the Sultan that the tiara of the Pope” or in another word, we would rather die than compromising the Faith, BUT God had different plan HE saved the Church and she still exist until today but the Emperor and his empire that he was trying to save on the expense of GOD’s Faith has since gone.

You left out one detail: the Eastern bishops at Florence (excepting Mark of Ephesus and anyone who left before the end) did, temporarily, choose union with Rome.

 

[Peter_J]

Just thinking outloud.

*]we’ve seen past councils meet, where obviously no prerequsite number of bishops were required to attend for there to be a decision for the entire Church. For example, some early councils (of the 1st 7) didn’t have any or just a few Western bishops attend, yet by approving them, the pope made those councils “ecumenical” i.e. binding on the whole Church.

That’s a good thread topic, but I’m not sure if I’d want to add it in to the topics we’ve already got in this thread.

*]Too bad the emperor got involved at the end, with the council of Florence.

I’m not sure what you mean.

The RO make up ~90% +/- of EO today.

The ROC is large, but it’s not *that *large.

 

[steve_b]

I’m not sure what you mean.

emperors making quid pro quo proposals/conditions
J:

The ROC is large, but it’s not *that *large.

I was going by what a one time discussion with a Russian Orthodox poster said. Since I had no dog in the hunt, I’ve been using what he said ever since. I see I should have checked his percentages . I don’t know if the following numbers are correct either, but hopefully they reflect a more accurate picture. Apparantly the worldwide population of EO is ~230 million. Of that, the RO make up ~125 M or ~54%. If that’s correct, then by themselves, compared to all the other EO churches combined, they are still the elephant in the EO room…

 

[Peter_J]

*]Too bad the emperor got involved at the end, with the council of Florence.

emperors making quid pro quo proposals/conditions

Oh, I see.