The Greeks who attended the council demanded it.
The Patriarchs didn’t recognise the authority of their legates when they returned home. A little bit like what Pope Leo did at the Council of 449.
The Patriarchs didn’t want to betray Orthodoxy. That’s what happened.
The Fathers and the Seven Ecumenical Councils, neither recognised univeral papal jurisdiction, but, in fact, contradicted it quite often.
And which Council condemned that teaching? There were Fathers who asserted it, just not all of them, and no Council contradicts it.
Nicaea I, canon 6.
That’s not how it works. It’s not tit for tat. It’s not a political negotiation where each side makes a concession in perfect balance. It’s about the demands of Christian charity. If the Orthodox have so stringent a view of the true faith that they can’t make any concessions at all, that is their infirmity (or maybe they’re just right), but it doesn’t excuse Catholics from making as many concessions as they can.
Well, that sounds good. I am not quite sure if it is true.
Mine. The Orthodox were pressured by both the Pope (who gave them almost no rations) and the Emperor, who wanted to save his dying empire. Besides, Russia didn’t recognise the union either, and they weren’t controlled by the muslims. Read the journal of Syropoulos who was there.
You may not recognize it as an ecumenical council for various reasons, but I’m not sure if the representation argument is the best one…after all, there were a number of councils that the West does indeed recognize as ecumenical that had viritually no Latin representation at all! In any event, numbers aren’t everything. It has often been suggested that the Melkite bishops, despite their minute numbers next to the overwhelming majority of Latin bishops, were a very vocal and influential voice at Vatican II.
That sounds like political spin. I also think that means little to those who went to their deaths by lions. But anyways, for the entire eastern sides representatives to make agreement at a historic council except for one person and then later toss it out the window sounds just a little suspicious. I hope you can understand.
The same Greeks who agreed to the council decisions? Where are you getting this information. Where can I read it?
Perhaps, but even those who lived in christian countries tossed it out of the window. Not everything is a political conspiracy.
Sylvester Syropoulos’ memoirs. It must be somewhere on the internet.
I was hoping for a link but I will look into it. Thanks.
I only have a physical copy of a French translation, so that wont help you I’m afraid. The only English translation on the internet that I could find only translated section 4. I did however find a manuscript, but I don’t think that one is useful either.
On the contrary, which Ecumenical Council accepted that teaching? Mind here that “Ecumenical” has a deeper sense that just labeling a council that is deemed “infallible”.
Ecumenical means “the inhabited world” from the Greek “Ekumene”. For a council to be Ecumenical, all bishops must accept it, not just those who attended the council. And a council only becomes Ecumenical after all the bishops accept it, not because someone declared it to be so.It proves what many Orthodox have claimed right here at CAF before and that I’m sure you’re aware of - they can reject a council even if their Bishops participate and vote on it and accept it. What’s your proof that Florence was not ecumenical like the councils of the first 8 centuries? Please give actual proof and not mere condescension that proves nothing (like asking me if I know what a ecumenical council is without even bothering with so much as an attempt to show why a council like Florence cannot be so) - and while you’re at it, be sure to explain why Chalcedon or any other council after it should be considered ecumenical per that standard you’re using (whatever it is). Thanks.
Which meaning I’m still waiting for you to give us as you exclude some for apparently no reason…since Orientals participated in none from chalcedony going forward.
As mentioned about, you do not hold an Ecumenical Council. A Council is declared Ecumenical later on when ALL bishops agree to it.
I just did, I think I posted at the same time you did. I’ll wait for your response to my other posts.
Right. So why on God’s green earth is any of the seven ecumenical? Some were rejected by nestorians and going forward, chalcedon and all that followed were rejected by Orientals. Are there only one or two councils - if that- that are ecumenical?
This doesn’t contradict Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction at all. It simply says that the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch have extra-metropolitan jurisdiction. In the Catholic Church we call that a Patriarch. Nothing in this Canon impedes the Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction of Rome, but rather it extends the jurisdiction of certain locales over that of other nearby Bishops.
You’re going off the rails again. I asked which Council condemned the teaching because Cyrillic stated that “Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction” was heresy, and therefore voided the Council of Florence. A teaching can’t be called heresy unless it’s condemned, so perhaps you can point to the condemnation?
How many Ecumenical Councils have been agreed to by ALL bishops, your words? Show me one, just one.
Don’t you see how it gives jurisdiction of Egypt to Alexandria and Syria to Antioch, and not both to Rome? Egypt cannot have two heads, like a monster. I’ll add Chalcedon’s canon 28 which declared that Constantinople New Rome had equal authority (isa presbeia). Does that mean that the Ecumenical Patriarch has Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction as well?