Question for Orthodox Christians (esp. converts)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Servus_Pio_XII
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Servus_Pio_XII

Guest
Okay, I can reasonably accept most Orthodox arguments on theological issues (filioque &c.), Church gov’t (conciliarism) and the other great East-West divisive issues, but I cannot understand one thing:

What makes the Union of Florence invalid? How does one determine whether an Oecumenical Council is valid or not? Why was the signing of reunion by all but (St.) Mark of Ephesus not sufficient to bring the Churches back in communion with each other?

I will view your arguments much more gratefully if you could provide precedent - i.e. an instance of the same thing as Florence occurring that is accepted as valid by both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

Christ is Risen!
 
The union of Florence, though celebrated throughout western Europe –bells were rung in all the parish churches of England – proved no more of a reality in the east than its predecessor at Lyons. John VIII and his successor Constantine XI, the last Emperor of Byzantium and the eightieth in succession since Constantine the Great, both remained loyal to the union; but they were powerless to enforce it on their subjects, and did not even dare to proclaim it publicly at Constantinople until 1452. Many of those who signed at Florence revoked their signatures when they reached home. The decrees of the Council were never accepted by more than a minute fraction of the Byzantine clergy and people. The Grand Duke Lucas Notaras, echoing the words of the Emperor’s sister after Lyons, remarked: “I would rather see the Muslim turban in the midst of the city than the Latin mitre.”

John and Constantine had hoped that the Union of Florence would secure them military help from the west, but small indeed was the help which they actually received. On 7 April 1453 the Turks began to attack Constantinople by land and sea. Outnumbered by more than twenty to one, the Byzantines maintained a brilliant but hopeless defence for seven long weeks. In the early hours of 29 May the last Christian service was held in the great Church of the Holy Wisdom. It was a united service of Orthodox and Roman Catholics, for at this moment of crisis the supporters and opponents of the Florentine Union forgot their differences. The Emperor went out after receiving communion, and died fighting on the walls. Later the same day the city fell to the Turks, and the most glorious church in Christendom became a mosque.
(Bishop Kallistos Ware)

**The venerable Mark was called a new St. Athanasios and St. **John the Theologian. He was considered a confessor and martyr by almost the entire body of the Greek Church. He was met with universal enthusiasm and respect.
 
Servus_Pio_XII said:
Okay, I can reasonably accept most Orthodox arguments on theological issues (filioque &c.), Church gov’t (conciliarism) and the other great East-West divisive issues, but I cannot understand one thing:

What makes the Union of Florence invalid? How does one determine whether an Oecumenical Council is valid or not? Why was the signing of reunion by all but (St.) Mark of Ephesus not sufficient to bring the Churches back in communion with each other?

I will view your arguments much more gratefully if you could provide precedent - i.e. an instance of the same thing as Florence occurring that is accepted as valid by both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

Christ is Risen!
Click to expand...
The closest precedent perhaps would be Constantinople IV 869, if Rome still accepted the Council of 879. Instead, after 1054 Rome switched to the Council of 869 in the midst of the investiture controversy (the canons of the 869 council were useful to the pope’s side, but to use them would mean that the council would have to be rehabilitated, which it was in the West: it is now Rome’s 8th Ecumenical Council. The definitions of the councils, however, are a mess, because it’s chief claim to fame before the 11th century was that the Council of Constantinople IV 879 condemned it as a Robber Council.

I have to go now, but God willing will finish…
 
Another thing would be precedent, if it were an Ecumenical Council, was the Union of Hormisdas. The populace on a whole in Constantinople held to Chalcedon, and with the ascension of Justin, the Faithful prevailed to make it the official position of the See and restore Communion with Rome (they had already been in communion with Antioch and Jerusalem, they were in with Alexandria but ceased when Alexandria stayed with a non-Chalcedonian). The Pope’s formula called for a recognition of his primacy. The EP John appended a preamble with stated the equality of Old and New Rome. The bishops whom the emperor could strong armed signed. Those he couldn’t, including those in Rome’s own patriarchate (e.g. Thessalonica, where the bishop ripped the document in two), didn’t. The Pope urged the emperor to use force to secure their signatures, but the emperor replied that the bulk of the hierarchy and Faithful, though restoring communion, would not sign the Formula.
 
Servus_Pio_XII said:
Okay, I can reasonably accept most Orthodox arguments on theological issues (filioque &c.), Church gov’t (conciliarism) and the other great East-West divisive issues, but I cannot understand one thing:

What makes the Union of Florence invalid? How does one determine whether an Oecumenical Council is valid or not? Why was the signing of reunion by all but (St.) Mark of Ephesus not sufficient to bring the Churches back in communion with each other?

I will view your arguments much more gratefully if you could provide precedent - i.e. an instance of the same thing as Florence occurring that is accepted as valid by both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches.
Click to expand...
You mean a Council both accept that one renounced. That’s somewhat by definition impossible. The question of Constantinople IV and the Union of Hormisdas, comes closest.

Btw, Constantinople IV 879 also proves that is not a supposed defect of not having a pope that prevents the Orthodox from having another Ecumenical Council. Otherwise, we would have eight councils (indeed some claim we do, but they also claim Constantinople V too, which occured two centuries after 1054.

Christ is Risen!
 
Thank you very much. I hadn’t thought the issue was an overlooked one, but I did not know the answer.

I presume the entire issue rests on a view of the faithful as protectors of Orthodoxy, together with the clergy, as opposed to the clergy alone.
 
Servus_Pio_XII said:
Thank you very much. I hadn’t thought the issue was an overlooked one, but I did not know the answer.

I presume the entire issue rests on a view of the faithful as protectors of Orthodoxy, together with the clergy, as opposed to the clergy alone.
Click to expand...
I think that sums it up pretty well but one must always remember, iIt is the role of the episcopate to “rightly define the word of truth”. The laity’s role is for the most part passive, we must obey our bishops. It’s only when the bishops do something that clearly comes into conflict with Apostolic Tradition that the role of the laity comes into play.

Yours in Christ
Joe
 
josephdaniel29 said:
I think that sums it up pretty well but one must always remember, iIt is the role of the episcopate to “rightly define the word of truth”. The laity’s role is for the most part passive, we must obey our bishops. It’s only when the bishops do something that clearly comes into conflict with Apostolic Tradition that the role of the laity comes into play.
Click to expand...
Not just the laity mind you. There will always be monks, deacons, priests and other bishops who will maintain the Orthodox faith when other bishops head off the narrow path.

John.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top