there is a strong indication that Professor Pelikan took the easy and superficial
I can think of a few terms to describe Pelikan's work... dry, unOrthodox, well-read... but superficial doesn't seem to fit. A popularizer to some extent, yes, but superficial? Nah...
A few notes back there is a brief concluding paragraph by Professor Pelikan where he sums up the Council of Florence in a few words. IF you read Father Professor Joe Gill's documentary history of the Council and also Professor Gilquists comments that I posted here, you too might be able to see what I mean when I say those few lines of summation are superficial and quite misleading
Your comments are superficial and misleading until and unless you document your vague claim.
First you tell us Pelikan's conclusions are biased because he was Lutheran then. Problem: Lutherans affirm the same position as Roman Catholics by including the filioque. Oops.
Then you tell us you can't accept Pelikan's conclusions because they are too Orthodox. Problem: hardly a convincing reply in an Orthodox forum.
Then you tell us you can't accept his statements because they conflict with your Roman Catholicism. Problem: nothing more than a circular appeal to your personal religious preference. Fine as far as it goes, but not too convincing from an academic point of view.
Then you tell us Pelikan ignored Father Gill. Problem: he cited Fr. Gill Oops.
Then you say Pelikan ingored the gist of Gill. You were asked to be specific. Problem: you never provided a specific reply.
Then you are requested to provide the evidence from Gill. Problem: you don't want to type the pages.
Then you claim you're just making an assertion, Pelikan just made assertions too. Problem: Pelikan provided citations -evidence; you made an assertion that Pelikan didn't know what he was talking about but refuse to provide documentation after repeated request.
Then you are requested to just provide page numbers from Gill where you claim there is a specific rebuttal to Pelikan's quote since you don't want to type out whole pages of Gill. Problem: See next line.
Then you claim the rebuttal isn't just a matter of pages, but it is found plastered all across many chapters of Gill. Problem: credibility of supposing you saw a rebuttal to a small paragraph plastered across many chapters for which you can't provide any single example whatsoever by page reference.
Then you appeal to an article by Gilquist you posted. Problem: it's about St. Maximos, and we can agree with the quote (see my explanation posted above) but see nothing contra Pelikan's citations.