Rome in the early Church (long)

[Image_of_God]

This growth in power would be roughly equivalent to the growth in importance of the size and influence of the city of Constantinople, right? So it remains to be seen whether this is a legitimate development of the Catholic faith and Rome is clutching on to the good ole days, or if Constantinople is being a usurper and Rome still really has supremacy. I believe the answer to this question is provided by Irenaeus, when he says:
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
The Churches must agree with Rome and the apostolic tradition is maintained in the church of Rome due to her superior origin. This is something that can never change. Or maybe we should give primacy of honour these days to the Archbishop of Westminster - the head bishop as it were of the most influential city in the world (most arguably of course)?

I believe this power passed to Rome can be explained as being a local power for the bishop of Constantinople, rather than as being over the whole Catholic Church. Maybe we have a bit more work to do in this thread, but I wonder if you will concede that it is a possible explanation? If you do concede this, then the overwhelming witness of the Church fathers (given for example at the list you linked to and in books such as Upon This Rock by Steve Ray) overwhelms any doubt we may have. In other words, we are faced with a choice:

1. 
   *]Power did pass from Rome to Constantinople, and this power is mutable throughout history. The witness of the fathers in favour of Roman Supremacy can be explained if we say that these are local powers given to the Patriarch of Rome. And Irenaeus was plain wrong (along with say, Jerome for example, in his letter to Damasus).
   *]Power did pass to Constantinople, due to Imperial power passing to Constantinople, but Supremacy remained at Rome due to the origin (something that will never change) of the church at Rome. The witness of the councils that you have mentioned can be explained by saying that these powers were local powers only.
   *]The discrepancy cannot be explained; there is a contradiction.
   
   Indeed.

1. 
   Exactly! St. Irenaeus, was a Greek from Antioch, and he saw that Roman Supremacy was unchangeable.

 

[Image_of_God]

I have another quote from St. Optatus, and I will note that he was not Roman. I will also note off of Ateryu, that Rome has a superior origin that cannot be removed. St. Optatus shares a similar view.
He even gives a list in chronological order, of the Popes which the Catholic Church has used over and over.
St. Optatus:

You cannot then deny that you do know 33 that upon Peter first 34 in the City of Rome 35 was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra,36 on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas 37), |67 that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all,38** lest the other Apostles might claim----each for himself----separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra 39 would already be a schismatic and a sinner. **|68

Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.40

III. The Succession of Bishops of Rome.

To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, to Evaristus 41 Sixtus, to Sixtus Telesphorus, to Telesphorus Hyginus, to Hyginus Anacetus, to Anacetus Pius, to Pius Soter, to Soter Alexander, to Alexander Victor, to Victor Zephyrinus, to Zephyrinus Calixtus, to Calixtus Urban, to Urban Pontianus, to Pontianus Anterus, to Anterus Fabian, to Fabian Cornelius, to Cornelius Lucius, to Lucius Stephen, to Stephen Sixtus, to Sixtus Dionysius, to Dionysius Felix, to Felix Marcellinus, to Marcellinus Eusebius, to Eusebius Miltiades, to Miltiades Silvester, to Silvester Marcus, |69 to Marcus Julius, to Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Siricius,42 who to-day is our colleague, with whom ‘the whole world,’ 43 through the intercourse of letters of peace,44 agrees with us in one bond of communion.45

Now do you show the origin of your Cathedra,46 you who wish to claim the Holy Church for yourselves!

He thus gives a list of Roman Popes, and concurs, with the agrees with the belief that the Superior authority also was transferred with them, even after Constantinople was raised up in authority, second to that of Rome. You must also remember, that it was Antioch and Alexandria who had second authority to Rome, before Constantinolple.

St. Optatus goes even so far as to refer to the shrines of Peter and Paul, to prove Rome’s supreme authority and origin:
St. Optatus:

But 47 you allege that you too have some sort of a party in the City of Rome.48 |70

It is a branch of your error growing out of a lie, not from the root of truth. In a word, were Macrobius 49 to be asked where he sits in the City, will he be able to say on Peter’s Cathedra? I doubt whether he has even set eyes upon it, and schismatic that he is, he has not drawn nigh to Peter’s ‘Shrine,’ 50 against the precept of the Apostle who writes:

‘Communicating with the “Shrines” of the Saints.’ 51 |71

Behold, in Rome are the ‘Shrines’ of the two Apostles. Will you tell me whether he has been able to approach them, or has offered Sacrifice in those places, where----as is certain----are these ‘Shrines’ of the Saints.

tertullian.org/fathers/optatus_02_book2.htm

 

[Mystophilus]

I have another quote from St. Optatus, and I will note that he was not Roman. I will also note off of Atreyu, that Rome has a superior origin that cannot be removed. St. Optatus shares a similar view.
He even gives a list in chronological order, of the Popes which the Catholic Church has used over and over.

He thus gives a list of Roman Popes, and concurs with the belief that the Superior authority also was transferred with them, even after Constantinople was raised up in authority, second to that of Rome. You must also remember, that it was Antioch and Alexandria who had second authority to Rome, before Constantinolple.

St. Optatus goes even so far as to refer to the shrines of Peter and Paul, to prove Rome’s supreme authority and origin:
tertullian.org/fathers/optatus_02_book2.htm

Thanks for the references. I think that the same issue may be appearing here as is appearing in my discussion with Atreyu.

I have not actually been arguing here for the validity of the Greek position, or against that of the Latin one. My reason for not having done so is that I do not believe that either is arguable, because both ultimately depend upon faith.

From the Latin position, one starts with faith that the Pope and Magesterium must always be correct, and works from there. If they say that Rome is superior in authority, then a devout Catholic must believe it.

From the Greek position, one starts with faith that the Ecumenical Councils must always be correct, and works from there. If they do not say that Rome is superior in authority, then a devout Orthodox has no reason to believe it.

I, of course, am neither of the above, being a devout heretic in my abject failure to accept either viewpoint.

My purpose here has been to demonstrate to Roman Catholics the lack of definitive early Church Greek belief in the supremacy of Rome, as embodied in the absence of any validation of such supremacy by the Ecumenical Councils. While I can have no objection to you conducting more research and finding more Greek Fathers who did support Rome, the fact remains that their were not enough of them to sway the Councils, which is why, when push came to shove, the other three patriarchates all sided with Constantinople.

In other words, this has been about the role of Rome in the early Church as determined by those who could have been, but chose not to be, Rome’s subordinates.

As I write this, I realise that it sounds like a dismissal, which it is not intended to be. Rather, I would just prefer not to stray away from that phenomenological topic (‘what they thought’) into the looming ontological one (‘what is True’).

 

[Mystophilus]

So it remains to be seen whether this is a legitimate development of the Catholic faith and Rome is clutching on to the good ole days, or if Constantinople is being a usurper and Rome still really has supremacy. I believe the answer to this question is provided by Irenaeus… Or maybe we should give primacy of honour these days to the Archbishop of Westminster - the head bishop as it were of the most influential city in the world (most arguably of course)?

I think that we may be running into a problem. Thus far, I have been discussing not what I believe, but what the Greeks said. I think that that line might be starting to blur. Please see my response to Image of God, also.

To return to the Greek perspective, they believed that any Church Father could say anything that he liked, but it did not determine the Truth. Only the Ecumenical Councils could do that. As such, when the Smyrnan-born Bishop of Lugdunum said that his patriarch, the Bishop of Rome, held an unchangeably superior position, he was speaking as one bishop, not as the Voice of the Church.

Going back, then, to the situation between Rome and Constantinople, while Constantinople certainly did eclipse Rome in political terms (largely because of the devastating Goth invasions of the West), the minor advantages of authority eventually bestowed upon it by the Councils were ones which no Ecumenical Council had ever bestowed upon Rome. Thus, the situation never changed, in the sense of power being taken from one and given to the other, it merely developed, as one was granted a new power. As to whether or not that was a ‘legitimate development’, the Greek answer would always be “Yes”, because the Ecumenical Councils did it.

Think of the Ecumenical Councils as the Pope and Magesterium, and you will see how the Greeks saw them: everything that they said was guaranteed to be true by virtue of the fact that they said it.

I believe this power passed to Rome can be explained as being a local power for the bishop of Constantinople, rather than as being over the whole Catholic Church. Maybe we have a bit more work to do in this thread, but I wonder if you will concede that it is a possible explanation?

If the power which we are discussing is the primacy of jurisdiction, then I am not sure that we can describe it as being local, because no geographical limit to it is ever mentioned by the Councils.

If you do concede this, then the overwhelming witness of the Church fathers (given for example at the list you linked to and in books such as Upon This Rock by Steve Ray) overwhelms any doubt we may have.

There is a problem with this idea, however. The lists of Church Fathers who support Roman primacy, and even sometimes Roman supremacy, are compiled by Catholic apologists. With all due respect, they do have a preferential bias to present the works of those Fathers who support their views, and not of those who contradict them. What is even more problematic is the fact that the other side had very little to say: we do not see Greek Fathers saying, “Rome is not the principal source of doctrine”, because they never had a reason to say any such thing until it became an issue over the filioque. At that point, they said it as clearly as they could, by siding with Constantinople against Rome.

In other words, we are faced with a choice:

1. • Power did pass from Rome to Constantinople, and this power is mutable throughout history. The witness of the fathers in favour of Roman Supremacy can be explained if we say that these are local powers given to the Patriarch of Rome. And Irenaeus was plain wrong (along with say, Jerome for example, in his letter to Damasus).
   • Power did pass to Constantinople, due to Imperial power passing to Constantinople, but Supremacy remained at Rome due to the origin (something that will never change) of the church at Rome. The witness of the councils that you have mentioned can be explained by saying that these powers were local powers only.
   • The discrepancy cannot be explained; there is a contradiction.

1. 
   This is where the line threatens to blur again, and so here I shall step aside, and present this widely-quoted (http://htaoc.com/faith/library/articles/hopko_reunion.html) of Orthodox ‘requirements’ for reunion with Rome. Note particularly the ninth, regarding the Pope agreeing to ‘never do or teach anything on his own authority, “from himself and not from the consensus of the church (ex sese et non ex consensu ecclesiae)”’. There is the Greek attitude to the Ecumenical Councils and their unparalleled authority, unchanged after two millenia.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

I had a look at Maximus the Confessor, both on the EWTN site and on Orthodox Wiki. He is certainly one of the Easterners who held Rome in high favour: I expected that there should be some, but I had not managed to locate any. Thank you for that. Apparently, he once said, “I hold the Latin faith, but I speak the Greek language.” His views regarding the religious authority of Rome, however, were not widespread amongst his co-linguists.

Saint Maximus was in a tight spot. Three Catholic Patriarchs of the East (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria) had fallen in with the monothelite heresy. Saint Maximus was so upset that he went and made his residence in Rome. He pinned all his hope on Rome upholding and restoring orthodoxy. But eventually even the Pope of Rome, Pope Honorius, succumbed to the monothelite heresy. So there was a time when four of the five Patriarchs (excluding Jerusalem) were heretical (Catholics shudder to hear that Honorius was a heretic but even the staunchly pro-papal Catholic Encyclopedia says, No Catholic may deny that Honorius was a heretic.)

**From The Life of Our Holy Father St. Maximus the Confessor **

The life of Saint Maximus is also instructive for us. Saint Maximus, though only a simple monk, resisted and cut off communion with every patriarch, metropolitan, archbishop and bishop in the East because of their having been infected with the heresy of Monothelitism. During the first imprisonment of the Saint, the messengers from the Ecumenical Patriarch asked him,"To which church do you belong? To that of Byzantium, of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? For all these churches, together with the provinces in subjection to them, are in unity. Therefore, if you also belong to the Catholic Church, enter into communion with us at once, lest fashioning for yourself some new and strange pathway, you fall into that which you do not even expect!"To this the righteous man wisely replied, "Christ the Lord called that Church the Catholic Church which maintains the true and saving confession of the Faith. It was for this confession that He called Peter blessed, and He declared that He would found His Church upon this confession."
The confession which they were proposing to the Saint was not Orthodox, of course, and so he refused to comply with their coercions. Furthermore, they were lying about the See of Rome which, in fact, had remained Orthodox.

As history has demonstrated, Saint Maximus—who was only a simple monk and not even ordained—and his two disciples were the ones who were Orthodox, and all those illustrious, famous and influential Patriarchs and Metropolitans whom the Saint had written against were the ones who were in heresy.

When the Sixth Ecumenical Synod was finally convened, among those condemned for heresy were four Patriarchs of Constantinople, one Pope of Rome, one Patriarch of Alexandria, two Patriarchs of Antioch and a multitude of other Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops. During *all *those years, that one simple monk was right, and all those notable bishops were wrong. (pp. 60-62)

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_canons.aspx

See
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1571274&postcount=15

 

[NotWorthy]

There is a problem with this idea, however. The lists of Church Fathers who support Roman primacy, and even sometimes Roman supremacy, are compiled by Catholic apologists. With all due respect, they do have a preferential bias to present the works of those Fathers who support their views, and not of those who contradict them. What is even more problematic is the fact that the other side had very little to say: we do not see Greek Fathers saying, “Rome is not the principal source of doctrine”, because they never had a reason to say any such thing until it became an issue over the filioque. At that point, they said it as clearly as they could, by siding with Constantinople against Rome.

Mysto, an earlier indicator would seem to be how the Eastern Church handled their Ex-communication by Pope Victor in the 2nd century. I’ll readily admit that the two books I read that glossed over this event were biased, but they seemed to say that the eastern ECF’s like Origen questioned the pope’s **wisdom **in this act, rather than his **authority **to do it. Can you provide some of the eastern ECF’s writings that tell the pope, “just who do you think you are???”

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Mysto, an earlier indicator would seem to be how the Eastern Church handled their Ex-communication by Pope Victor in the 2nd century.

There was no excommunication of the Catholics in the East. Pope Saint Victor said he would go out of communion with those who were celebrating the Resurrection of the Lord on the 14th Nissan (Quartodecimans) but wiser heads (including Saint Irenaeus of Lyons) prevailed upon him not to break communion.

Victor is interesting because he came out of the Church of Carthage and was the first bishop of Rome who did not speak Greek and use it for the Eucharist. All the previous 12 bishops of Rome had been Greek-speaking, as were Saint Peter and Saint Paul.

 

[Atreyu]

Saint Maximus was in a tight spot. Three Catholic Patriarchs of the East (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria) had fallen in with the monothelite heresy. Saint Maximus was so upset that he went and made his residence in Rome. He pinned all his hope on Rome upholding and restoring orthodoxy. But eventually even the Pope of Rome, Pope Honorius, succumbed to the monothelite heresy. So there was a time when four of the five Patriarchs (excluding Jerusalem) were heretical (Catholics shudder to hear that Honorius was a heretic but even the staunchly pro-papal Catholic Encyclopedia says, No Catholic may deny that Honorius was a heretic.)

Wrong, Pope Honorius did not succumb to the monothelite heresy. If you disagree, I think it’s only fair that you provide the relevant documentation for this, as you were the one who levelled the charge. But Honorius was condemned as a heretic; true. The Catholic Encyclopedia claims that:
The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra.

…

It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a “private heretic”, for he admittedly had excellent intentions.
Hmmm, it’s probably also incorrect to say that Constantinople fell into the Monothelite heresy, unless this was done by a Patriarch other than Sergius.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Wrong, Pope Honorius did not succumb to the monothelite heresy. If you disagree, I think it’s only fair that you provide the relevant documentation for this, as you were the one who levelled the charge.

Atreyu, can you know more than the Popes who lived at the time of Honorius. They were in a position to judge him a heretic.

1. His condemnation is found in the Acts of the 13th Session of the 6th Ecumenical Council.
2. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same Session.
3. In the 17th session of the 6th Ecumenical Council, the Council Fathers proclaimed:
   “Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius,…”

The above clinches it, unless one wants to argue that an Ecumenical Council and the Popes who ratified them may err but in that case the burden of proof is on the person who opposes the Council and the papal ratification. (Are Catholics not obliged to give intellectual assent to the Ecumenical Councils?)

1. In the decree of faith published at the 17th Session it is stated that “the originator of all evil the Devil…found a fit tool for his will in…Honorius, Pope of Old Rome…”
2. The report of the Council to the Emperor says that “Honorius,
   formerly bishop of Rome” they had “punished with exclusion and
   anathema” because he followed the monothelites.
3. In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says it “has slain Honorius with an anathema”
4. The imperial decree speaks of the “unholy priests who
   infected the Church and falsely governed” and mentions among them “Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself.”

The Emperor goes on to anathematize “Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.”

1. Pope Leo II confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius.
2. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is
   mentioned in the Trullan Canons.
3. So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the
   anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the acts
   the same is said.
4. Honorius’s name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is evident from Anastasius’s life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis II.)
5. The Papal Oath as found in the *Liber Diurnus *taken by
   each new Pope from the fifth to the eleventh centuries, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II:
   “smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, together with Honorius because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.”
6. In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II. in the Roman Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod. This reference to Honorius was removed before the definition of papal infallibility.

With such an array of proof no conservative historian, it would seem, can question the fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and that the Popes after him used their authority to uphold the decision against him.

 

[Atreyu]

With such an array of proof no conservative historian, it would seem, can question the fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and that the Popes after him used their authority to uphold the decision against him.

Father, did you actually read my post? I said that Honorius was not a Monethelite. Surely you can agree with that?

 

[Image_of_God]

Saint Maximus was in a tight spot. Three Catholic Patriarchs of the East (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria) had fallen in with the monothelite heresy. Saint Maximus was so upset that he went and made his residence in Rome. He pinned all his hope on Rome upholding and restoring orthodoxy. But eventually even the Pope of Rome, Pope Honorius, succumbed to the monothelite heresy. So there was a time when four of the five Patriarchs (excluding Jerusalem) were heretical (Catholics shudder to hear that Honorius was a heretic but even the staunchly pro-papal Catholic Encyclopedia says, No Catholic may deny that Honorius was a heretic.)

The Catholic Encyclopedia also says that he was a heretic only in a certain sense. It even says, that he did not even teach heresy, but he contributed to it, by not stopping it.
St. Agatho, even clearly reassures the legates, that Honorius, never taught heresy. You have probably come to the conclusion that somehow Honorius being heretic disproves Papal Infalliblity. It does not, and the Catholic Encyclopedia, clearly proves that. This is due to your misuderstanding of infalliblity. The Pope is not impeccable, meaning he can still have a sinful life, and still not teach error, in virtue to his office.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

This is due to your misuderstanding of infalliblity. The Pope is not impeccable, meaning he can still have a sinful life, and still not teach error, in virtue to his office.

Don’t underestimate my intelligence, Image. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif My “misunderstanding of infallibility” ! What misunderstanding? I’m ancient, and I learnt the difference between impeccability and infallibility when I was in primary school.

 

[Image_of_God]

Don’t underestimate my intelligence, Image. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif My “misunderstanding of infallibility” ! What misunderstanding? I’m ancient, and I learnt the difference between impeccability and infallibility when I was in primary school.

No, no, I wasn’t meaning that at all. Everyday is a new learning day. It was just the way you presented it made it seem like you didn’t understand infallibility. I am very sorry, if it seemed that way. I am not at all refuting your intellegence. In fact, I’d be the first to admit, that you are more intellegent than I am. For you have the “gray hairs” of wisdom, which is more dignified than the strength of the young (from Wisdom). I most immediately ask for pardon if I have offended you.
For you are probably alot older than you. And I must treat you with charity, as the Lord commanded. May I ask for your pardon?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

No, no, I wasn’t meaning that at all. Everyday is a new learning day. It was just the way you presented it made it seem like you didn’t understand infallibility.

Catholics always have this weird fear that non-Catholics are incapable of distinguishing between impeccability and infallibility.

For you are probably alot older than you. And I must treat you with charity, as the Lord commanded. May I ask for your pardon?

I did not know the Lord commanded charity towards the elderly. I mean, it stands to reason but I did not know He went out of His way to point it out?

Anyway, you have my pardon and I know we shall survive to joust another day.

 

[Atreyu]

Father do you agree that Honorius wasn’t a Monothelite?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Father do you agree that Honorius wasn’t a Monothelite?

If he wasn’t a monothelite then why was he condemned as a heretic? Was he in the clutches of some other heresy?

 

[Atreyu]

Perhaps this is a subject for another thread…

 

[Mystophilus]

Perhaps this is a subject for another thread…

Here because it does fit in with the topic of this thread:

• According to the Greek viewpoint, everything which the Councils decided must be right because a Council decided it.
• A Council denounced Honorius as a heretic.
• Thus, according to the Greek viewpoint, Honorius must be a heretic.

Note that I am referring to the Greek viewpoint, and not my own.

 

[StMarkEofE]

But what about Arianism? After the time of the first Ecumenical Council, Arianism was in the majority, was it not? Besides which in modern days, the majority of the Church subsists in the West; the Catholic Church. So if the Holy Spirit protects the majority, then the Holy Spirit must be on the side of the West.

Alternatively, the Holy Spirit does not protect the majority of the faithful, but there is an alternate system. Indeed, how can the East say that the Robber Council of Ephesus was invalid, whereas the Council of Chalcedon was valid? Catholics can point to which Council was held in Communion with the bishop of Rome. But what can the East point to?

But the Eastern church took care of its own by condemning Arianism at council. It didnt let it get out of hand and as I recall some of Arians influence creeped into western Christianity as well. The East can point to an ancient faith not effected by western incremental novelties that infected the western church after the first millenium. This is what the East can point to.

BUT this can be more easily debated on the Eastern Christianity forum of the CA website.

 

[Atreyu]

But the Eastern church took care of its own by condemning Arianism at council. It didnt let it get out of hand and as I recall some of Arians influence creeped into western Christianity as well. The East can point to an ancient faith not effected by western incremental novelties that infected the western church after the first millenium. This is what the East can point to.

BUT this can be more easily debated on the Eastern Christianity forum of the CA website.

I wonder then why the Council of Florence was rejected? I mean, it was accepted by all the higher clergy of the East except for Mark of Ephesus. It seems to me that it was the laity who rejected the Council of Florence, not the Eastern Episcopate.