Question on Filioque

[Alexander_Roman]

The filioque was approved East and West at the council of Florence 572 years ago. Don’t be a part of keeping this fight going. Please read the link at the bottom.

The Greek bishops and theologians attended the council of Ferrara from 9 April 1438. The council was transferred to Florence on 10 January 1439. There, in the session on 6 July 1439, the decree of union with the Greek church was approved. Subsequently decrees of union with the Armenian and Coptic churches were approved. Finally the council was transferred to Rome on 24 February 1443. There other decrees of union with the Bosnians, the Syrians and finally with the Chaldeans and Maronites of Cyprus, were approved. The last session of the council was held on 7 August 1445.

Please read session 6 (1439)
ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm

Dear Steve,

No serious student of the history of East-West relations would ever say that the Filioque was “approved” for the Eastern Church at Florence. The Greek bishops, iin their majority, signed it for the sake of military aid, as per the pressure from their Emperor. These same bishops, except for a very few, disowned their approval when they got home and certainly the faithful of their flock were very much against such union.

Also, what was approved at Florence? That Filioquism and the phrase “Through the Son” were equal. In fact, the phrase “through the Son” has to do with the Economic Trinity in Orthodoxy in the first instance and was emphasized by “Latinizing Greeks” or “Latinophrones” as they were called.

The idea that Florence was somehow an authoritative council for Orthodoxy is simply - not so and it only confirmed to the East that the only way for union is the “way of the Latins.” That whole approach is rejected by the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

In addition, Rome has, in effect, walked away from the notion of the legitimacy of those historic “unions” with various Eastern Churches, as Rome continually reminds representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church. Even the Pope recently told a ROC prelate, very apologetically, that “we inherited the unia” as if to say “it isn’t our fault, living in the 21st century.”

So get with the current program and please refrain from quoting old documents and events that have little or completely no relevance to contemporary times.

If you would like my opinion about Rome’s ostpolitik with the ROC, well . . . I guess you wouldn’t like it.

Alex

 

[ciero]

Dear Ciero,

It would seem that that is the only Latinization, but the people have to have it. Eastern molebens and akathists are used together with some rather excellent sermons about the Mother of God. A different miraculous icon is placed on the tetrapod throughout May.

But I think a much more serious issue is how some at the parish seem to think that the beginning and ending of their spiritual commitment is the Sunday DL only and that prayer outside of it is something not done (how sad!). For a number of them, Sunday attendance is like going to see a show etc.

I don’t see the fervour surrounding the May devotion as being a bad thing. But I know you will disagree with me. You should take it up with the parish priests - I’m sure they would have some choice words for you . . .

Cheers,

Alex

Alex;

Why would you think folks who’s whole spirituality is the Sunday Divine Liturgy “HAVE” to have the May devotions?

I have nothing against ANY devotion to the Theotokos, my comments about the May devotions although a bit sarcastic, had more to do with a parish that is so Eastern having to “HAVE” Latinized devotions to the Theotokos.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Ciero,

Well, I agree with you, but I do know that the May devotion is very important to the “Old World” folks in the parish who go each evening to the Moleben or Akathist (the Akathists are served on weekends) throughout the month of May.

My Godson’s grandmother was once very upset that her daughter and son-in-law refused to go to the May Molebens and told me, sobbing, “In my time, it was expected that we went to the May services every evening, without complaint, without any nonsense. . .”

I would like to see an Akathist to the Most Holy Mother of God served daily throughout the entire year myself.

But I’m referring to this “sociological” thing, if you will, and am not making it up.

Even in Sts. Volodymyr and Olha parish in Chicago, they used to have (and still do?) the May devotion due to long-standing practice.

So I’m just the messenger here.

Alex

 

[steve_b]

Dear Steve,

No serious student of the history of East-West relations would ever say that the Filioque was “approved” for the Eastern Church at Florence.

You misunderstand. The agreement is that both sides see what the other is saying. And peace was achieved at that council. iow, the Latin expression is correct, and the Greek expression is correct.
A:

The Greek bishops, in their majority, signed it for the sake of military aid, as per the pressure from their Emperor. These same bishops, except for a very few, disowned their approval when they got home and certainly the faithful of their flock were very much against such union.

So the following is a lie?

excerpt from session 6

"the wall that divided the western and the eastern church has been removed, peace and harmony have returned, since the corner-stone, Christ, who made both one, has joined both sides with a very strong bond of love and peace, uniting and holding them together in a covenant of everlasting unity. After a long haze of grief and a dark and unlovely gloom of long-enduring strife, the radiance of hoped-for union has illuminated all.
Let mother church also rejoice. For she now beholds her sons hitherto in disagreement returned to unity and peace, and she who hitherto wept at their separation now gives thanks to God with inexpressible joy at their truly marvellous harmony. Let all the faithful throughout the world, and those who go by the name of Christian, be glad with mother catholic church. For behold, western and eastern fathers after a very long period of disagreement and discord, submitting themselves to the perils of sea and land and having endured labours of all kinds, came together in this holy ecumenical council, joyful and eager in their desire for this most holy union and to restore intact the ancient love. In no way have they been frustrated in their intent. After a long and very toilsome investigation, at last by the clemency of the holy Spirit they have achieved this greatly desired and most holy union. Who, then, can adequately thank God for his gracious gifts?’ Who would not stand amazed at the riches of such great divine mercy? Would not even an iron breast be softened by this immensity of heavenly condescension?
These truly are works of God, not devices of human frailty. Hence they are to be accepted with extraordinary veneration and to be furthered with praises to God. To you praise, to you glory, to you thanks, O Christ, source of mercies, who have bestowed so much good on your spouse the catholic church and have manifested your miracles of mercy in our generation, so that all should proclaim your wonders. Great indeed and divine is the gift that God has bestowed on us. We have seen with our eyes what many before greatly desired yet could not behold.
For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind. [snip]

That was written after they adjourned
A:

Also, what was approved at Florence? That Filioquism and the phrase “Through the Son” were equal. In fact, the phrase “through the Son” has to do with the Economic Trinity in Orthodoxy in the first instance and was emphasized by “Latinizing Greeks” or “Latinophrones” as they were called.

please read session 6 without polemic bias?
A:

The idea that Florence was somehow an authoritative council for Orthodoxy is simply - not so .

The purpose of the council was to break down walls. It did that while all were assembled and after they adjourned.
A:

In addition, Rome has, in effect, walked away from the notion of the legitimacy of those historic “unions” …

If you want to talk about unia we can do that on another thread.
A:

So get with the current program and please refrain from quoting old documents and events that have little or completely no relevance to contemporary times.

If you would like my opinion about Rome’s ostpolitik with the ROC, well . . . I guess you wouldn’t like it.

Alex

Florence IS relevant. It shows agreement in an ecumenical council took place. This agreement ended this issue THEN. But many EO won’t drop it. That’s their choice.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Steve,

I don’t have a polemic bias here. If I did, I would be Orthodox!

I’m simply affirming that what Florence did has no relevance because it was a Latin Council where the Greeks accepted a Latin understanding of their “through the Son” and they did so under political duress - the union was very short-lived.

The later unias, especially that of Brest at which my Church went into union with Rome, did base their theology on Florence.

That does not mean that what happened at Florence meant a union of two different Triadologies or even an agreement on essentials.

Eastern Catholics, in equating “Through the Son” with the Filioque are doing so from within a Latin perspective - and we have always done that, so much so, that we have the Filioque and my parish recites it all the time (I say this at the risk of angering Ciero once more . . .).

That doesn’t mean a union on this has been achieved via Orthodoxy nor does it mean Orthodoxy is just being obstinate.

And, yes, the union of East and West depends entirely on coming together on the Triadologies.

It is what separated the Churches, and an agreement on it is what will unite the Churches, later doctrinal developments in the West notwithstanding.

So I’m not saying you are wrong, but I’m doing that as an Eastern Catholic. I’m telling you we are BOTH wrong if we try to tell the Orthodox Florence or any other union agreement resolved the Triadological issue.

I’m simply being honest (even though it pains me to say this). And only a future Union Council will be able to resolve this.

We won’t achieve this here.

And I apologise about my rant re: ostpolitik. I never seem to miss an opportunity to strike at it, do I? But I have enough martyrs and confessors for the Catholic Church in my own family to make me VERY sensitive about it.

And didn’t Aquinas say something about how good it is to be angry in a just cause? I think it’s a just cause, and if you feel it isn’t, then I apologise.

Alex

 

[ciero]

Dear Steve,

I don’t have a polemic bias here. If I did, I would be Orthodox!

I’m simply affirming that what Florence did has no relevance because it was a Latin Council where the Greeks accepted a Latin understanding of their “through the Son” and they did so under political duress - the union was very short-lived.

The later unias, especially that of Brest at which my Church went into union with Rome, did base their theology on Florence.

That does not mean that what happened at Florence meant a union of two different Triadologies or even an agreement on essentials.

Eastern Catholics, in equating “Through the Son” with the Filioque are doing so from within a Latin perspective - and we have always done that, so much so, that we have the Filioque and my parish recites it all the time** (I say this at the risk of angering Ciero once more . . .). **

That doesn’t mean a union on this has been achieved via Orthodoxy nor does it mean Orthodoxy is just being obstinate.

And, yes, the union of East and West depends entirely on coming together on the Triadologies.

It is what separated the Churches, and an agreement on it is what will unite the Churches, later doctrinal developments in the West notwithstanding.

So I’m not saying you are wrong, but I’m doing that as an Eastern Catholic. I’m telling you we are BOTH wrong if we try to tell the Orthodox Florence or any other union agreement resolved the Triadological issue.

I’m simply being honest (even though it pains me to say this). And only a future Union Council will be able to resolve this.

We won’t achieve this here.

And I apologise about my rant re: ostpolitik. I never seem to miss an opportunity to strike at it, do I? But I have enough martyrs and confessors for the Catholic Church in my own family to make me VERY sensitive about it.

And didn’t Aquinas say something about how good it is to be angry in a just cause? I think it’s a just cause, and if you feel it isn’t, then I apologise.

Alex

 

[Rawb]

(I say this at the risk of angering Ciero once more . . .).

It was the last they heard from Alexander Roman, and they never did find a body…

Ciero’s new signature, however, read “a man can only be pushed so far…”

 

[ciero]

it was the last they heard from alexander roman, and they never did find a body…

Ciero’s new signature, however, read “a man can only be pushed so far…”

lol!!! :d

 

[Cecilianus]

Orthodox dogma on the procession of the Holy Spirit was settled at the Council of Constantinople in 1351. It is not any “less defined” than the Roman dogma or any other insulting condescending phrase that Romans use to justify letting us say the Creed without interpolations - if anything, it is more developed and more precise since the Roman doctrine fails to make a distinction between energy and essence in the Godhead. The hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone as He is the sole font and source of the entire Godhead (rather than a prior, fourth “Essence” prior to the Trinity as in some heretical Dominican theologians like Meister Eckhart). The Holy Spirit receives His divinity through His eternal manifestation from the Son, as divinity is the energy of God not His essence. (Otherwise, how could we be divinized? Filioquism is the origin of the Lutheran doctrine of forensic justification, by obfusticating this distinction.) The manifestation of the Spirit through the Son concerns the immanent Trinity, not just the economic Trinity, and is thus a stronger claim about the “filioque” than even the formula Roman Catholic theologians are willing to make in their compromises to try to please the Orthodox.

When Roman Catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “and from the Son”, they refer to His eternal manifestation from the Son, which is why the filioque is neither heretical nor different than Orthodox doctrine, just a little less clear. (I’m not sure if the Latin language even has the proper terminology to make the distinction we do, so it’s not even improper in Latin to say “filioque” without distinguish the Spirit’s hypostatic origin from His eternal manifestation.) Thomism teaches that the Holy Spirit spirates “principally” from the Father, and His procession from the Son is the same act as His procession from the Father.

 

[steve_b]

Dear Steve,

I don’t have a polemic bias here. If I did, I would be Orthodox!

Ya coulda fooled me, I was beginning to think you switched
A:

I’m simply affirming that what Florence did has no relevance because it was a Latin Council where the Greeks accepted a Latin understanding of their “through the Son” and they did so under political duress - the union was very short-lived.

1. • Latin council? Does that disqualify it for some reason? What about the 1st 7 councils? Where were THEY held?
   • agreement motivated by political duress not the HS?
   A:
   

   The later unias, especially that of Brest at which my Church went into union with Rome, did base their theology on Florence.

   ergo the council of Florence made sense to other EO well after the fact.
   
   Have you seen these
   • http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15130a.htm
   • http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...p-ii_apl_19951112_iv-cent-union-brest_en.html
   • http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TREATBR.HTM
   A:
   

   That does not mean that what happened at Florence meant a union of two different Triadologies or even an agreement on essentials.

   The point is, there was agreement, and the differences were shown to be misunderstandings.
   A:
   

   Eastern Catholics, in equating “Through the Son” with the Filioque are doing so from within a Latin perspective - and we have always done that, so much so, that we have the Filioque and my parish recites it all the time (I say this at the risk of angering Ciero once more . . .).
   
   That doesn’t mean a union on this has been achieved via Orthodoxy nor does it mean Orthodoxy is just being obstinate.

   I agree. Any agreement with EO has to be one church at a time, each church agreeing on their own, because EO is not one church but many, and no one church among them nor any bishop of whaterver stripe among them, speaks for the whole.
   A:
   

   And, yes, the union of East and West depends entirely on coming together on the Triadologies.
   
   It is what separated the Churches, and an agreement on it is what will unite the Churches, later doctrinal developments in the West notwithstanding.

   Just as we’ve already had union with Orthodox churches and they are now Catholic, I find it hard to believe the other churches we are not in union with have a different triadology…but maybe they do and I’m wrong. Personally I think this is all about authority, not theology.
   A:
   

   So I’m not saying you are wrong, but I’m doing that as an Eastern Catholic. I’m telling you we are BOTH wrong if we try to tell the Orthodox Florence or any other union agreement resolved the Triadological issue.

   I realize my words need to be more specific when talking of Orthodoxy. I keep having to remind myself they aren’t one church. So EO, is too general, it needs to be more specific I guess. Any suggestions? Do you know how the numbers break out? I’ve heard the RO make up the majority of EO, maybe 90% + and most of them are inside Russia… Which leave all the other Orthodox churches to make up the remaining amount. But that’s just what I’ve heard. Do you have real statistics?
   A:
   

   And I apologise about my rant re: ostpolitik. I never seem to miss an opportunity to strike at it, do I? But I have enough martyrs and confessors for the Catholic Church in my own family to make me VERY sensitive about it.
   
   Alex

   :tiphat: no problem

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Well, I think you have given all this a very great deal of thought and while I disagree with your assessment (and those things are always open to disagreement and discussion), I think you’ve stated your case very comprehensively.

It’s too bad we can’t continue this at a pub over beer and wings.

Beer and wings can often succeed, in my experience, where argument fails!

Cheers,

Alex

 

[Cecilianus]

Ya coulda fooled me, I was beginning to think you switched

1. • Latin council? Does that disqualify it for some reason?

1. 
   Meaning that although Greek bishops were present it was dominated by the Latins and the Greeks were pressured into a union they didn’t want and under terms foreign to them. They did not work together with the Latin bishops against heresy the way they had during the first seven ecumenical councils.
   

   What about the 1st 7 councils? Where were THEY held?

   They were all held in the East, but there was no conflict between East and West then, except for a jurisdictional clause in the Council in Trullo which the West rejected.
   

   • agreement motivated by political duress not the HS?

   The Holy Spirit sometimes writes straight with crooked lines. Yes, it was motivated entirely by political duress, and would have probably lasted if it had been motivated by the Holy Spirit instead. There were genuine, sincere unionists at the Council, like St. Mark of Ephesus - but St. Mark insisted that the West drop the filioque as the bare minimum for union, and since the West both refused (in which they were right to do) and never explained the orthodoxy of their doctrine and canonical legitimacy of their practice (in which the West erred), St. Mark, who was probably the only Greek at the council who acted sincerely, refused to sign the articles of union.
   

   ergo the council of Florence made sense to other EO well after the fact.

   But it was IMMEDIATELY repudiated by all the Greek bishops as soon as they got home.
   

   Have you seen these

   • http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15130a.htm
   • http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...p-ii_apl_19951112_iv-cent-union-brest_en.html
   • http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TREATBR.HTM

   The old Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent is NOT a reliable source on the Christian East, as wonderful as it is on the Roman Rite.
   

   The point is, there was agreement, and the differences were shown to be misunderstandings.

   Yes - but like most previous unions, the Council was tainted by political motivations, and until the Orthodox can come to union for purely spiritual reasons we are not going to have a Unia which is both permanent and which embraces all Orthodox rather than a tiny minority.
   

   I agree. Any agreement with EO has to be one church at a time, each church agreeing on their own, because EO is not one church but many, and no one church among them nor any bishop of whaterver stripe among them, speaks for the whole.

   Unfortunately, this is only going to give rise to the problem of uniatism (individual eparchies in schism from their mother churches), since the Orthodox DO form one communion (however weak the unity of this communion may be, as we note by watching the constant comical power struggles between Moscow and Constantinople), and any Orthodox church which professes union with Rome independently is going to have to break off from the rest of the Orthodox communion. If by “agreement” with the Orthodox you mean recognition that the Church of Rome is not heretical, this is something that is going to have to be recognized one individual at a time, because not even the bishops of an Orthodox church can define or proclaim new teaching, the way the Pope does. That can only be done at ecumenical synods and councils - and since the canons against Roman Catholicism from the synod of Jerusalem have been added to the synodikon of Holy Orthodoxy, it is unlikely that this council is going to be repudiated except by another Council.
   

   Just as we’ve already had union with Orthodox churches and they are now Catholic, I find it hard to believe the other churches we are not in union with have a different triadology…but maybe they do and I’m wrong. Personally I think this is all about authority, not theology.

   No, it’s about theology, not authority, since we haven’t changed our minds about authority. The Pope does not dictate new doctrine to us any more than he does to the Western Church - that’s a common misunderstanding in the East that has no business being repeated in the West. The deposit of faith was given to us in Christ. It is defined through the God-illumined Fathers of the Holy Councils, by the inspiration of the saints and elders, and by the pastoral teaching of the bishops and shepherds of the Church, most prominently the Pope of Rome. Authority comes from grace, from the Holy Spirit speaking through His divinized servants, and is organic to the life of the Church - not something that can be imposed from without, as the Western bishops arguably tried to do to the Eastern bishops at Florence.
   
   You’ve already had union with Orthodox churches, but we are still Orthodox. The only difference is that we recognize that the Roman Catholics are also Orthodox. (And how could they not be? Arguments of the Roman sedevacantists notwithstanding, how could the Holy Spirit let the See of Peter fall into heresy?)

 

[dvdjs]

But it was IMMEDIATELY repudiated by all the Greek bishops as soon as they got home.

I am skeptical of the opinions that you have written above, but the quote above is a simple matter of fact. Given that the union of Florence persisted until after the fall of Constantinople, when the the reigning, united Patriarch was replaced, by act of the Sultan, with an opponent who ended the union, I find it a little surprising. What is the source of the quoted idea and what is the evidence for it?

 

[Vico]

The complex timeline:

1439 June 6 Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and bishops * sign union with Rome
1439 June 8 Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople dies
1439 Russian Church separates from the Greek when the Greek join with Rome
1453 Fall of Constantinople
1470 Patriarch of Constantinople Gregory III defects from Rome
1520-1566 Sulemann II, 1521 conquest of Belgrade Serbia
1521 Martin Luther 95 Thesis
1529 Siege of Vienna (which failed) maximum extent of Ottoman Empire
1540 Society of Jesus founded by Loyola
1545 Council of Trent
1552 Chaldean Church reunion with Catholic Church
1569 Union of Lublin (Poland-Lithuania merge) - Moscovy border changes
1588 Moscow Patriarchate established by Patriarch of Constantinople
1595 Union of Brest (Greek Catholics in Poland)
1599 Syro Malabar reunion with Catholic Church

• except Mark of Ephesus

 

[steve_b]

Meaning that although Greek bishops were present it was dominated by the Latins and the Greeks were pressured into a union they didn’t want and under terms foreign to them. They did not work together with the Latin bishops against heresy the way they had during the first seven ecumenical councils.

They were all held in the East, but there was no conflict between East and West then, except for a jurisdictional clause in the Council in Trullo which the West rejected.

The Holy Spirit sometimes writes straight with crooked lines. Yes, it was motivated entirely by political duress, and would have probably lasted if it had been motivated by the Holy Spirit instead. There were genuine, sincere unionists at the Council, like St. Mark of Ephesus - but St. Mark insisted that the West drop the filioque as the bare minimum for union, and since the West both refused (in which they were right to do) and never explained the orthodoxy of their doctrine and canonical legitimacy of their practice (in which the West erred), St. Mark, who was probably the only Greek at the council who acted sincerely, refused to sign the articles of union.

Here’s sessions 5-8 of the council. Scroll to session 6. ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm#3 You’ll notice, it says great effort went into explaining each other’s side of the issue taking into account Latn and Greek fathers and language differences so that no side is misrepresented. At the end, all sides agreed, the issue was a misunderstanding of eachother’s position. Peace was achieved

As for Mark of Ephesus, he continued to demogogue and misrepresent the issue. catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheChurch/Articles/Filioque.aspx and those EO today, those who continue the fight, fight an opponant of their own making, just like Mark of Ephesus.
C:

The old Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent is NOT a reliable source on the Christian East, as wonderful as it is on the Roman Rite.

It’s recognized internationally, as a reliable source.
C:

Yes - but like most previous unions, the Council was tainted by political motivations, and until the Orthodox can come to union for purely spiritual reasons we are not going to have a Unia which is both permanent and which embraces all Orthodox rather than a tiny minority.

Since no ONE speaks for Orthodoxy, agreements have to be made with one church at a time…true? Each agreement might look like a minority agreement but that’s all that’s available at certain times in history.
C:

Unfortunately, this is only going to give rise to the problem of uniatism (individual eparchies in schism from their mother churches), since the Orthodox DO form one communion (however weak the unity of this communion may be, as we note by watching the constant comical power struggles between Moscow and Constantinople), and any Orthodox church which professes union with Rome independently is going to have to break off from the rest of the Orthodox communion.

Hence my point, one looks for peace where one can get it. Sometimes it’s one church at a time.

I don’t think Alex saw my question, so maybe you have the answer. It’s my understanding that the RO make up the predominant number of Orthodox…maybe 90% + of the total. And most of them are in Russia. Is that correct? If so then all the other Orthodox churches make up the remaining 10% +/-? If it’s not correct, do you have the correct numbers?
C:

If by “agreement” with the Orthodox you mean recognition that the Church of Rome is not heretical, this is something that is going to have to be recognized one individual at a time, because not even the bishops of an Orthodox church can define or proclaim new teaching, the way the Pope does.

Which means, toll houses is not a new teaching?
C:

The Pope does not dictate new doctrine to us any more than he does to the Western Church - that’s a common misunderstanding in the East that has no business being repeated in the West. The deposit of faith was given to us in Christ. It is defined through the God-illumined Fathers of the Holy Councils, by the inspiration of the saints and elders, and by the pastoral teaching of the bishops and shepherds of the Church, most prominently the Pope of Rome. Authority comes from grace, from the Holy Spirit speaking through His divinized servants, and is organic to the life of the Church - not something that can be imposed from without, as the Western bishops arguably tried to do to the Eastern bishops at Florence.

If Mark of Ephesus was free not to sign the agreement and didn’t sign it, then so were the others free to sign or not sign. As you can see, from session 6, an agreement happened, so all the others signed the agreement.
C:

No, it’s about theology, not authority, since we haven’t changed our minds about authority.

Really?
C:

You’ve already had union with Orthodox churches, but we are still Orthodox. The only difference is that we recognize that the Roman Catholics are also Orthodox. (And how could they not be? Arguments of the Roman sedevacantists notwithstanding, how could the Holy Spirit let the See of Peter fall into heresy?)

You’re right, the Trinity, Father Son and HS, won’t let the See of Peter ever teach heresy.

And as Benedict XVI says in his homily on Pentecost 2008, the Church is Catholic from the very beginning vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20080511_pentecoste_en.html

 

[Cecilianus]

Which means, toll houses is not a new teaching?

No, it’s actually pretty old - many of the stories of the toll houses date back to the Roman Empire. They’re pretty controversial in the East, because their origin seems to have come from the Bogomils and the earlier Gnostics. The Old Believers in Russia are pretty insistent on them - references to the mytarstva are all over the prayer book published by the edinovertsy (Old Ritualists in communion with the Russian Orthodox) in New York. Fedotov (The Russian Religious Mind) was critical of the “toll house” doctrine for its legalism - provided we get rid of the idea of physical combustion (“material fire”) and physical locality to Purgatory which is a misunderstanding of the Western doctrine anyway, Purgatory - or the process of purgation of healing before theosis in Heaven - is closer to the spirit of Byzantine theology than the “toll houses” are.

If you want to read more about the origins of the “toll house” teachings, I would recommend two books by Orthodox priests, one on each side of the controversy - The Soul After Death by Blessed Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) of Platina, who was Serbian Orthodox, and The Toll-House Myth: The Neo-Gnosticism of Father Seraphim Rose, by Father Michael Azkoul, an Antiochian Orthodox priest. Fr. Azkoul says that the Latin doctrine of Purgatory comes closer to the Orthodox doctrine than the “toll-houses”, but this is probably a minority opinion for Orthodox.

I do not see the two doctrines - Purgatory and theloneia/mytarstva - as being all that different. The purpose is the same, and details as to the “geography” I generally consider to be fanciful illustrations to make a point. The West focuses more on the manenr of punishment and purgation, while the East has greater detail as the order in which sins are purged.

 

[Cecilianus]

The Council of Florence would have done better if it had recognized the distinction between essence/energies and the manner of procession of the Spirit according to that distinction (hypostatic procession from the Father, energetic procession from the Son, and one procession, not two). That’s what I mean when I say that the Council was phrased in “Latin terms”. And the Greeks usually mean “hypostatic procession” when we say “cause” - since “cause” is ambiguous. We will not call the Son the “principle of subsistence” of the Spirit, but it seems that the terms mean something different in the West because the Council did not force the Greeks to call Him that, only the Latins.

The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto.

That is enough affirmation for me that the West is Orthodox, and should be for the rest of the Orthodox Church. But the union should occur under non-politically motivated circumstances.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Steve,

I saw your question - but didn’t understand its relevance. The Russian Church is the largest EO Church, to be sure.

Mark of Ephesus is a saint of the Orthodox Church, he came to Florence as a unionist and was undoubtedly free of the fear of the emperor back home. Unlike his bishop-compatriots who changed with the wind, Mark never wavered from his position, at Florence or at home. Pope Eugenius could not have been unaware of the politicall pressure on the Greek bishops - which is why he is said to have remarked, at Mark’s leaving without signing the union, “We have accomplished nothing.”

Florence was a Latin Council, espousing Latin ideas onto a Greek episcopal audience anxious to effect a union at a time when their home country’s continued existence depended on Western aid.

We cannot separate theology from politics, to be sure. Florence was an abject failure in its aims and the later unias, such as at Brest, that was based on it were also abject failures, if modern RC scholarship that repents of them is anything to go by.

Again, Florence did not take Orthodox Triadology seriously - it only assumed that Latin Triadology was the true standard for orthodox Trinitarianism.

That was the main flaw - it elevated the Latin theologoumenon as a sine qua non of an orthodox understanding of Triadology for the universal Church.

So much for diversity in unity.

Alex

 

[ciero]

Dear Steve,

I saw your question - but didn’t understand its relevance. The Russian Church is the largest EO Church, to be sure.

Mark of Ephesus is a saint of the Orthodox Church, he came to Florence as a unionist and was undoubtedly free of the fear of the emperor back home. Unlike his bishop-compatriots who changed with the wind, Mark never wavered from his position, at Florence or at home. Pope Eugenius could not have been unaware of the politicall pressure on the Greek bishops - which is why he is said to have remarked, at Mark’s leaving without signing the union, “We have accomplished nothing.”

Florence was a Latin Council, espousing Latin ideas onto a Greek episcopal audience anxious to effect a union at a time when their home country’s continued existence depended on Western aid.

We cannot separate theology from politics, to be sure. Florence was an abject failure in its aims and the later unias, such as at Brest, that was based on it were also abject failures, if modern RC scholarship that repents of them is anything to go by.

Again, Florence did not take Orthodox Triadology seriously - it only assumed that Latin Triadology was the true standard for orthodox Trinitarianism.

That was the main flaw - it elevated the Latin theologoumenon as a sine qua non of an orthodox understanding of Triadology for the universal Church.

So much for diversity in unity.

Alex

Very well put Alex!!

 

[steve_b]

Dear Steve,

I saw your question - but didn’t understand its relevance. The Russian Church is the largest EO Church, to be sure.

Mark of Ephesus is a saint of the Orthodox Church, he came to Florence as a unionist and was undoubtedly free of the fear of the emperor back home. Unlike his bishop-compatriots who changed with the wind, Mark never wavered from his position, at Florence or at home. Pope Eugenius could not have been unaware of the politicall pressure on the Greek bishops - which is why he is said to have remarked, at Mark’s leaving without signing the union, “We have accomplished nothing.”

Florence was a Latin Council, espousing Latin ideas onto a Greek episcopal audience anxious to effect a union at a time when their home country’s continued existence depended on Western aid.

We cannot separate theology from politics, to be sure. Florence was an abject failure in its aims and the later unias, such as at Brest, that was based on it were also abject failures, if modern RC scholarship that repents of them is anything to go by.

Again, Florence did not take Orthodox Triadology seriously - it only assumed that Latin Triadology was the true standard for orthodox Trinitarianism.

That was the main flaw - it elevated the Latin theologoumenon as a sine qua non of an orthodox understanding of Triadology for the universal Church.

So much for diversity in unity.

Alex

1. 
   *]For sure, unity won’t happen unless both sides agree.
   *]Do you honestly think the West doesn’t comprehend the Triadology of the EO?
   *]Cudos to the Eastern churches that DID unite with the pope.