Why do Orthodox reject the Council of Florence?

[sasg]

Specifically, what are the theological objections to the Council of Florence that prevent the Orthodox from accepting it? Filioque? Primacy? Purgatory? Something else? What about the particular formulas of the Council do Orthodox believers disagree with?

The text of Session 6 of the Council (which dealt with the schism) is here:
ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm#3

 

[Hesychios]

That’s a good question for an Orthodox discussion board.

 

[johnnykins]

Very good questions. BTW don’t forget to consider the history before the Council, the about-face of Scholarius after the Council, the appointment of Scholarius as Patriarch by the Sultan after the council, and the lack of any consistent touchstone in Orthodoxy for considering any council ecumenical. Note, too, the conditions of the Empire and Emperor before and during the Council, the strange death of the Patriarch at the Council, etc., etc., make for interesting reading. In all an interesting episode in history as complex as any.

IMHO the short answer to your question is a history of distrust, power, hatred and war with a pretext of doctrinal differences that have since hardened into an interesting group of distinctions that any scholastic or byzantine philosopher would be proud of in its impenetrability.

 

[Cavaradossi]

St. Mark of Ephesus found that the people in Florence could not produce souvlaki and baklava to his liking. This led him to be quite grumpy at the council, refusing to sign anything until the “bland, tasteless Latins” could feed him some proper food.

The Latins were so offended that they then spent the next five hundred years preparing food to end the schism, hence French and Italian cuisine.

 

[sasg]

That’s a good question for an Orthodox discussion board.

I guess my follow-up question is: why don’t Eastern Catholics reject the Council of Florence (or do they?)? Do they say the Orthodox objections to it are erroneous, obsolete, or something else?

Surely the Orthodox have what they consider to be good reasons for rejecting the Council. And the Eastern Catholics, at least the ones that entered the Catholic Church after 1439, had also presumably accepted the Orthodox arguments against it. So what caused them to change their mind? Do they now defend the Council, or do they still assert that the Council was invalid for reasons similar to the Orthodox position?

And those questions, I think, are well-suited to an Eastern Catholic discussion board

 

[Hesychios]

And those questions, I think, are well-suited to an Eastern Catholic discussion board

Good idea!

Someone should start a thread …

 

[FabiusMaximus]

St. Mark of Ephesus found that the people in Florence could not produce souvlaki and baklava to his liking. This led him to be quite grumpy at the council, refusing to sign anything until the “bland, tasteless Latins” could feed him some proper food.

The Latins were so offended that they then spent the next five hundred years preparing food to end the schism, hence French and Italian cuisine.

Mark of Ephesus never had appreciation for fine Italian food.

And that is why you Orthodox are all heretics.

Now come back to the table and enjoy some delicious food, and bring some baklava while you’re at it.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Of course, the Orthodox mostly approved the Council of Florence, but then went back on it.

The reason why they did THAT is what the discussion should be about.

 

[Formosus]

A couple of Greek bishops from Morea and Constantinople approved it, not most of the orthodox. The union of Florence was a flawed attempt at reunion that did not deal with any of the real issues besides a half way attempt at solving the filioque and agreeing that levened bread was ok for the “Greeks” to use at the liturgy. Most of the bishops agreed to it because they were either byzantine humanists/hellenists who liked the west for its Aristotlean philosophy or reluctantly agreed in hopes that the latins would assist in saving what was left of the Roman empire from the Turks. Mark of ephesus returned to Constantinople as the only non signer and preached against the council. Eventually his position won out.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Of course, the Orthodox mostly approved the Council of Florence, but then went back on it.

The reason why they did THAT is what the discussion should be about.

If by most you mean about 20 or so plus the Emperor, then yes. The bishops back home were less than pleased, and the union caused much civil unrest.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I guess my follow-up question is: why don’t Eastern Catholics reject the Council of Florence (or do they?)? Do they say the Orthodox objections to it are erroneous, obsolete, or something else?

Surely the Orthodox have what they consider to be good reasons for rejecting the Council. And the Eastern Catholics, at least the ones that entered the Catholic Church after 1439, had also presumably accepted the Orthodox arguments against it. So what caused them to change their mind? Do they now defend the Council, or do they still assert that the Council was invalid for reasons similar to the Orthodox position?

And those questions, I think, are well-suited to an Eastern Catholic discussion board

There was a council at Florence?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Mark of Ephesus never had appreciation for fine Italian food.

And that is why you Orthodox are all heretics.

Now come back to the table and enjoy some delicious food, and bring some baklava while you’re at it.

Grappa proceeds from Grapes alone, not Grapes and Pommace. I will never eat with heretics who believe that Grapes are not the sole cause of Grappa!

 

[Hesychios]

Of course, the Orthodox mostly approved the Council of Florence, but then went back on it.

The reason why they did THAT is what the discussion should be about.

Not that I know much, but ‘mostly’ in this context is an erroneous conception, mostly based upon Latin ecclesiological assumptions.

I am sure you would understand the concept of a Robber Synod, Orthodox reaction has to be seen in this light.

 

[sasg]

Not that I know much, but ‘mostly’ in this context is an erroneous conception, mostly based upon Latin ecclesiological assumptions.

I am sure you would understand the concept of a Robber Synod, Orthodox reaction has to be seen in this light.

Are there specific Orthodox objections to the Council, or is it not accepted simply because only a small number of Eastern bishops took part?

 

[sasg]

There was a council at Florence?

I know you meant that sarcastically, but seriously–is that the position of the Eastern Catholic Churches that were not in union with Rome at the time, i.e. that the Council is not binding on them because they did not participate in it?

 

[OrthodoxJosh]

Specifically, what are the theological objections to the Council of Florence that prevent the Orthodox from accepting it? Filioque? Primacy? Purgatory? Something else? What about the particular formulas of the Council do Orthodox believers disagree with?

The text of Session 6 of the Council (which dealt with the schism) is here:
ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm#3

I will do my best to answer your question from an Orthodox perspective, but realize I am not a theologian or scholar, just a lay-person who loves to compare and contrast Orthodoxy and RC. Basically all the reasons you listed are the reasons the Orthodox (excepting the few who signed and then repented) would not accept the terms of this “robber council”. The reason the ones who signed changed their minds was because they were so few, and had no authority to represent the entire faithful of the Orthodox Church. You should read “A Short History of Byzantium” (i forget the author’s name) for a description of what happened when news reached Constantinople of the bishops sigining for union.

 

[Mickey]

From an Orthodox perspective, you will find an in-depth account of this “council” by reading the life of St Mark of Ephesus in the Great Synaxaristes.

Vol. 01: Great Synaxaristes – January
Lives of the Saints translated from the Greek—complete, unabridged, & annotated.

 

[Hesychios]

I know you meant that sarcastically, but seriously–is that the position of the Eastern Catholic Churches that were not in union with Rome at the time, i.e. that the Council is not binding on them because they did not participate in it?

I think you will find that the EC are somewhat divided on this issue, but I don’t think it is based on the fact that they ‘did not participate’ but more on the lines of the fact that these were Councils for the western church, not the universal church. For most of that time, the Roman Catholic church was basically almost all Latin anyway, so they saw themselves as being the only valid expression of Apostolic Christianity. Perhaps these parochial western European concerns looked like all of Christianity to them then.

There is a Melkite Catholic website that lists 7 Councils, and recent some Popes have used terms like 'General Council of the West" to describe some of these later councils, although I would not be the person to ask about that.

That distinction may be hard to grasp, but lets say if the Eastern Churches had participated in them, and the content and subject matter were exactly the same (perhaps it would not have been), they would still be western councils dealing with western issues. It was not the lack of participation or even the location, but the agenda more than anything else. These were very, very Latin Councils. For three examples, I think it could be argued that if the ‘1054’ schism had never happened the Filioque would never have been made a dogma in the year 1264AD, and the Papal dogmas would not have passed in 1870AD. The Council of Constance was also strictly a western affair (Hus might not have been burned for wanting the Eucharist in both Species), as was Trent which dealt with corruption and reform and forms of theological expressions which had little to no relevance to the eastern churches.

At least (I might be able to revise my impression at a later time after further study), but that is how it looks to me.

 

[Nicea325]

I think you will find that the EC are somewhat divided on this issue, but I don’t think it is based on the fact that they ‘did not participate’ but more on the lines of the fact that these were Councils for the western church, not the universal church. For most of that time, the Roman Catholic church was basically almost all Latin anyway, so they saw themselves as being the only valid expression of Apostolic Christianity. Perhaps these parochial western European concerns looked like all of Christianity to them then.

There is a Melkite Catholic website that lists 7 Councils, and recent some Popes have used terms like 'General Council of the West" to describe some of these later councils, although I would not be the person to ask about that.

That distinction may be hard to grasp, but lets say if the Eastern Churches had participated in them, and the content and subject matter were exactly the same (perhaps it would not have been), they would still be western councils dealing with western issues. It was not the lack of participation or even the location, but the agenda more than anything else. These were very, very Latin Councils. For three examples, I think it could be argued that if the ‘1054’ schism had never happened the Filioque would never have been made a dogma in the year 1264AD, and the Papal dogmas would not have passed in 1870AD. The Council of Constance was also strictly a western affair (Hus might not have been burned for wanting the Eucharist in both Species), as was Trent which dealt with corruption and reform and forms of theological expressions which had little to no relevance to the eastern churches.

At least (I might be able to revise my impression at a later time after further study), but that is how it looks to me.

Hey Orthodox brother in Christ. I have a question regarding Orthodoxy in Asian countries? Do you know by any chance what % of Asians belong to Orthodox Christianity?