Second council of Lyon

[Irish Hermit]

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...! The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

" However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

So is it true, then, that they didn't mention a need for ratification until after the death of Patriarch Joseph?

There were no representatives from the most ancient Patriarchates - the holy Church of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria.

Also, there were no representatives from the Churches of Serbia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, etc.

How could a union be imposed on these autocephalous Churches without their participation and approval?

The Roman Catholic claim that union was achieved at Florence is unsustainable.

[xariskai]

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...! The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

" However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

So is it true, then, that they didn't mention a need for ratification until after the death of Patriarch Joseph?

Also, what about vasily's question:

Since, overall, the Council of Florence lasted for about a year, did not the delegates representing the Eastern Orthodox communicate back to their appropriate jurisdictions or Patriarchs with regards to the matters being discussed?  I cannot understand why the populous and other bishops found out about the decisions of this council after the fact.  

One must also keep in mind the sack of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453; sometimes political realities make timely response a tad complicated (the final session of the Council of Florence took place April 25, 1449).

[Irish Hermit]

Also, what about vasily's question:

Since, overall, the Council of Florence lasted for about a year, did not the delegates representing the Eastern Orthodox communicate back to their appropriate jurisdictions or Patriarchs with regards to the matters being discussed?  I cannot understand why the populous and other bishops found out about the decisions of this council after the fact. 

Dear Vasily,

If one assumes that there was communication with the Synods of bishops back home, one would conclude that they must have been reminding the people in Florence that nothing could be ratified without the convening of a great council in the East.

And it is imperative to keep in mind that the delegates at Florence were delegates from a minority of the Orthodox Churches.  With the absence of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Serbia, Bulgaria, Cyprus and other Churches, the delegation was far from representing the full Orthodox Church.

[Peter J]

The Roman Catholic claim that union was achieved at Florence is unsustainable.

What if we just say that a union was achieved at Florence, but it was considerably less successful than, say, the Union of Brest?

[Irish Hermit]

The Roman Catholic claim that union was achieved at Florence is unsustainable.

What if we just say that a union was achieved at Florence, but it was considerably less successful than, say, the Union of Brest?

Let's say then that at Florence union was achievd with two Orthodox Churches

1.  the Church of Constantinople
2.  the Church of Russia
        (represented by its Metropolitan, a Constantinople appointee.)

No union was achieved with

1.  the Church of Jerusalem
2.  the Church of Antioch
3.  the Church of Alexandria
4.  the Church of Serbia
5.  the Church of Bulgaria
6.  the Church of Cyrpus

[Peter J]

The Roman Catholic claim that union was achieved at Florence is unsustainable.

What if we just say that a union was achieved at Florence, but it was considerably less successful than, say, the Union of Brest?

Let's say then that at Florence union was achievd with two Orthodox Churches

1.  the Church of Constantinople
2.  the Church of Russia
        (represented by its Metropolitan, a Constantinople appointee.)

Alright.

[xariskai]

The Roman Catholic claim that union was achieved at Florence is unsustainable.

What if we just say that a union was achieved at Florence, but it was considerably less successful than, say, the Union of Brest?

Let's say then that at Florence union was achievd with two Orthodox Churches

1.  the Church of Constantinople
2.  the Church of Russia
        (represented by its Metropolitan, a Constantinople appointee.)

Alright.

But even then there is no genuine union of Eastern and Western churches if the Orthodox people ultimately rejected it as a Robber Council, which is an historical reality. Genuine union of the East with the Latins would have to include the Orthodox people as a whole, not just an agreement with some of her hierarchs, or even all of her hierarchs.

[Peter J]

The Roman Catholic claim that union was achieved at Florence is unsustainable.

What if we just say that a union was achieved at Florence, but it was considerably less successful than, say, the Union of Brest?

Let's say then that at Florence union was achievd with two Orthodox Churches

1.  the Church of Constantinople
2.  the Church of Russia
        (represented by its Metropolitan, a Constantinople appointee.)

Alright.

But even then there is no genuine union of Eastern and Western churches if the Orthodox people ultimately rejected it as a Robber Council, which is an historical reality. Genuine union of the East with the Latins would have to include the Orthodox people as a whole, not just an agreement with some of her hierarchs, or even all of her hierarchs.

As I mentioned earlier, I think the union that the Council of Florence achieved was less successful than the Union of Brest.  I say that because even those who accepted the Florentine Union, rejected it once they realized that most other Orthodox were rejecting it.

[ialmisry]

The Roman Catholic claim that union was achieved at Florence is unsustainable.

What if we just say that a union was achieved at Florence, but it was considerably less successful than, say, the Union of Brest?

Let's say then that at Florence union was achievd with two Orthodox Churches

1.  the Church of Constantinople
2.  the Church of Russia
        (represented by its Metropolitan, a Constantinople appointee.)

Alright.

But even then there is no genuine union of Eastern and Western churches if the Orthodox people ultimately rejected it as a Robber Council, which is an historical reality. Genuine union of the East with the Latins would have to include the Orthodox people as a whole, not just an agreement with some of her hierarchs, or even all of her hierarchs.

As I mentioned earlier, I think the union that the Council of Florence achieved was less successful than the Union of Brest.  I say that because even those who accepted the Florentine Union, rejected it once they realized that most other Orthodox were rejecting it.

That distinguishes Brest from Florence how?

Actually, as Brest was supposedly the implimentation of Florence, don't think a distinction can be made.

[Volnutt]

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...! The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

" However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

So is it true, then, that they didn't mention a need for ratification until after the death of Patriarch Joseph?

Also, what about vasily's question:

Since, overall, the Council of Florence lasted for about a year, did not the delegates representing the Eastern Orthodox communicate back to their appropriate jurisdictions or Patriarchs with regards to the matters being discussed?  I cannot understand why the populous and other bishops found out about the decisions of this council after the fact. 

My only problem here, is it seems like a Supreme Pontiff/Bishop should needed based on the example of the One God over the One Church. The father is head over his family, God is Lord over all creation, and God the Father is greater in authority or function over the other two Persons of the Trinity.

It seems like to say Peter only has primacy of honor and not supremacy over the other Apostles messes up the typology.

[elijahmaria]

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...! The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

" However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

So is it true, then, that they didn't mention a need for ratification until after the death of Patriarch Joseph?

Also, what about vasily's question:

Since, overall, the Council of Florence lasted for about a year, did not the delegates representing the Eastern Orthodox communicate back to their appropriate jurisdictions or Patriarchs with regards to the matters being discussed?  I cannot understand why the populous and other bishops found out about the decisions of this council after the fact. 

My only problem here, is it seems like a Supreme Pontiff/Bishop should needed based on the example of the One God over the One Church. The father is head over his family, God is Lord over all creation, and God the Father is greater in authority or function over the other two Persons of the Trinity.

It seems like to say Peter only has primacy of honor and not supremacy over the other Apostles messes up the typology.

Not even the Catholic Church uses that typology. 

The Holy Father is the shepherd and steward and vicar. 

[xariskai]

The Roman Catholic claim that union was achieved at Florence is unsustainable.

What if we just say that a union was achieved at Florence, but it was considerably less successful than, say, the Union of Brest?

Let's say then that at Florence union was achievd with two Orthodox Churches

1.  the Church of Constantinople
2.  the Church of Russia
        (represented by its Metropolitan, a Constantinople appointee.)

Alright.

But even then there is no genuine union of Eastern and Western churches if the Orthodox people ultimately rejected it as a Robber Council, which is an historical reality. Genuine union of the East with the Latins would have to include the Orthodox people as a whole, not just an agreement with some of her hierarchs, or even all of her hierarchs.

As I mentioned earlier, I think the union that the Council of Florence achieved was less successful than the Union of Brest.  I say that because even those who accepted the Florentine Union, rejected it once they realized that most other Orthodox were rejecting it.

There is probably as much warrant to dub the "Union of Brest" as the "Disunion of Brest." Seeing as the Ruthenians broke relations (Disunion) with the patriarch of Constantinople in this "Union" (not to mention decades of Rus fighting Rus) the so-called Union of Brest certainly cannot be deemed a genuine "union" in the Orthodox sense of sobernost described above.

[Shanghaiski]

The "one pope to rule them all" theory died at the Jerusalem council documented in Acts.

[Volnutt]

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...! The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

" However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

So is it true, then, that they didn't mention a need for ratification until after the death of Patriarch Joseph?

Also, what about vasily's question:

Since, overall, the Council of Florence lasted for about a year, did not the delegates representing the Eastern Orthodox communicate back to their appropriate jurisdictions or Patriarchs with regards to the matters being discussed?  I cannot understand why the populous and other bishops found out about the decisions of this council after the fact. 

My only problem here, is it seems like a Supreme Pontiff/Bishop should needed based on the example of the One God over the One Church. The father is head over his family, God is Lord over all creation, and God the Father is greater in authority or function over the other two Persons of the Trinity.

It seems like to say Peter only has primacy of honor and not supremacy over the other Apostles messes up the typology.

Not even the Catholic Church uses that typology. 

The Holy Father is the shepherd and steward and vicar. 

Why is he referred to as the visible head, though?

[elijahmaria]

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...! The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

" However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

So is it true, then, that they didn't mention a need for ratification until after the death of Patriarch Joseph?

Also, what about vasily's question:

Since, overall, the Council of Florence lasted for about a year, did not the delegates representing the Eastern Orthodox communicate back to their appropriate jurisdictions or Patriarchs with regards to the matters being discussed?  I cannot understand why the populous and other bishops found out about the decisions of this council after the fact. 

My only problem here, is it seems like a Supreme Pontiff/Bishop should needed based on the example of the One God over the One Church. The father is head over his family, God is Lord over all creation, and God the Father is greater in authority or function over the other two Persons of the Trinity.

It seems like to say Peter only has primacy of honor and not supremacy over the other Apostles messes up the typology.

Not even the Catholic Church uses that typology. 

The Holy Father is the shepherd and steward and vicar. 

Why is he referred to as the visible head, though?

That is more of an association of the Church as the Body of Christ, rather than an analog to the Trinity.

[Volnutt]

Ok. But still, as a husband is head of the wife, etc. it seems like there should be a bishop over the whole Church. The Orthodox position confuses me.

[elijahmaria]

Ok. But still, as a husband is head of the wife, etc. it seems like there should be a bishop over the whole Church. The Orthodox position confuses me.

I agree with you.

[deusveritasest]

The "one pope to rule them all" theory died at the Jerusalem council documented in Acts.

*thumbs up*

[deusveritasest]

Ok. But still, as a husband is head of the wife, etc. it seems like there should be a bishop over the whole Church. The Orthodox position confuses me.

You are really confusing yourself, given that all these traditions supposedly affirm that it is Jesus Christ who is the real head of the Church.

[ialmisry]

Ok. But still, as a husband is head of the wife, etc. it seems like there should be a bishop over the whole Church.

There is:  I Peter 2:"21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. 3:1 1 Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands..."

The Orthodox position confuses me.

What's confusing?

[ialmisry]

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...! The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

" However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

So is it true, then, that they didn't mention a need for ratification until after the death of Patriarch Joseph?

Also, what about vasily's question:

Since, overall, the Council of Florence lasted for about a year, did not the delegates representing the Eastern Orthodox communicate back to their appropriate jurisdictions or Patriarchs with regards to the matters being discussed?  I cannot understand why the populous and other bishops found out about the decisions of this council after the fact. 

My only problem here, is it seems like a Supreme Pontiff/Bishop should needed based on the example of the One God over the One Church. The father is head over his family, God is Lord over all creation, and God the Father is greater in authority or function over the other two Persons of the Trinity.

It seems like to say Peter only has primacy of honor and not supremacy over the other Apostles messes up the typology.

Not even the Catholic Church uses that typology. 

The Holy Father is the shepherd and steward and vicar. 

Why is he referred to as the visible head, though?

That is more of an association of the Church as the Body of Christ, rather than an analog to the Trinity.

That's true enough. Unlike the Orthodox episcopate, where the fullness resides in any single bishop like the fullness of the Godhead resides in any one Person of the Most Holy Trinity, the Vatican's episcopate is all head and no body.

[Αριστοκλής]

Did those Churches, the Oriental Orthodox, first agree with the decisions at the Council of Chalcedon and then reject it later on? Because this is exactly what occurred at Florence.

Essentially the Bishops of what was to become the Syriac Orthodox Church were the only ones who accepted Chalcedon at first.

No, the Egyptian bishops were not allowed to leave until they agreed.

Are you sure here? Does not the last act of this council allow the Egyptian bishops to defer their decision?

[Volnutt]

Ok. But still, as a husband is head of the wife, etc. it seems like there should be a bishop over the whole Church.

There is:  I Peter 2:"21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. 3:1 1 Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands..."

The Orthodox position confuses me.

What's confusing?

Shouldn't it be on earth on it is in Heaven? One Bishop above, one bishop bellow. One primate over all the clergy in a diocese and one primate over all the clergy in the "super-diocese" that is the Church. Instead, it's monarchy on all the lower levels and then a form of democracy at the top.

[akimori makoto]

Ok. But still, as a husband is head of the wife, etc. it seems like there should be a bishop over the whole Church.

There is:  I Peter 2:"21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. 3:1 1 Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands..."

The Orthodox position confuses me.

What's confusing?

Shouldn't it be on earth on it is in Heaven? One Bishop above, one bishop bellow. One primate over all the clergy in a diocese and one primate over all the clergy in the "super-diocese" that is the Church. Instead, it's monarchy on all the lower levels and then a form of democracy at the top.

How so? Christ is our one high priest (aka hierarch), to whom the knee of every other bishop (who we call hierarch only by extension) must bend.

[deusveritasest]

Shouldn't it be on earth on it is in Heaven?

To suggest that Christ is not present in the earthly Church would be heretical.

[akimori makoto]

Shouldn't it be on earth on it is in Heaven?

To suggest that Christ is not present in the earthly Church would be heretical.

This sounds right to me.

[ialmisry]

Ok. But still, as a husband is head of the wife, etc. it seems like there should be a bishop over the whole Church.

There is:  I Peter 2:"21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. 3:1 1 Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands..."

The Orthodox position confuses me.

What's confusing?

Shouldn't it be on earth on it is in Heaven? One Bishop above, one bishop bellow. One primate over all the clergy in a diocese and one primate over all the clergy in the "super-diocese" that is the Church. Instead, it's monarchy on all the lower levels and then a form of democracy at the top.

Christ told the Apostles they would sit on twelve thrones.  He gave no ranking of those thrones.

Any Person of the Holy Trinity outranks anyone else, but the Three sit on the same throne.

The Church isn't a superdiocese, any more than the Holy Trinity is a sum of parts.  All the dioceses do not add up to the Church. Each diocese is the fullness of the Church.

[xariskai]

Shouldn't it be on earth on it is in Heaven? One Bishop above, one bishop bellow. One primate over all the clergy in a diocese and one primate over all the clergy in the "super-diocese" that is the Church.

That there is no trace of papal supremacy in the early Church before the medieval period makes any suggestion that there is a clear mandate for it in scripture highly problematic on the face of it. If papal supremacy was intended by the likes of the Lord's Prayer (which seems a bit of a stretch to me on the face of it) why didn't anyone realize it for so long?

[ialmisry]

Shouldn't it be on earth on it is in Heaven?

To suggest that Christ is not present in the earthly Church would be heretical.

This sounds right to me.

LOL. That it is heretical, or that the heresy sounds right to you?

[akimori makoto]

Shouldn't it be on earth on it is in Heaven?

To suggest that Christ is not present in the earthly Church would be heretical.

This sounds right to me.

LOL. That it is heretical, or that the heresy sounds right to you?

The former!

[deusveritasest]

The monarchy of Christ is exercised on Earth by the work of the indwelling Spirit.

[Volnutt]

Ok, I think I get what you guys are saying. Thanks.

[Peter J]

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...! The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

" However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

So is it true, then, that they didn't mention a need for ratification until after the death of Patriarch Joseph?

Also, what about vasily's question:

Since, overall, the Council of Florence lasted for about a year, did not the delegates representing the Eastern Orthodox communicate back to their appropriate jurisdictions or Patriarchs with regards to the matters being discussed?  I cannot understand why the populous and other bishops found out about the decisions of this council after the fact. 

My only problem here, is it seems like a Supreme Pontiff/Bishop should needed based on the example of the One God over the One Church. The father is head over his family, God is Lord over all creation, and God the Father is greater in authority or function over the other two Persons of the Trinity.

It seems like to say Peter only has primacy of honor and not supremacy over the other Apostles messes up the typology.

Not even the Catholic Church uses that typology. 

The Holy Father is the shepherd and steward and vicar. 

Yes, he is the shepherd and steward and vicar, but that doesn't contradict the fact that he is supreme, has universal ordinary jurisdiction etc.

[Peter J]

Shouldn't it be on earth on it is in Heaven? One Bishop above, one bishop bellow. One primate over all the clergy in a diocese and one primate over all the clergy in the "super-diocese" that is the Church.

That there is no trace of papal supremacy in the early Church before the medieval period makes any suggestion that there is a clear mandate for it in scripture highly problematic on the face of it. If papal supremacy was intended by the likes of the Lord's Prayer (which seems a bit of a stretch to me on the face of it) why didn't anyone realize it for so long?

No trace? What about Pope Leo?

[Shanghaiski]

Shouldn't it be on earth on it is in Heaven? One Bishop above, one bishop bellow. One primate over all the clergy in a diocese and one primate over all the clergy in the "super-diocese" that is the Church.

That there is no trace of papal supremacy in the early Church before the medieval period makes any suggestion that there is a clear mandate for it in scripture highly problematic on the face of it. If papal supremacy was intended by the likes of the Lord's Prayer (which seems a bit of a stretch to me on the face of it) why didn't anyone realize it for so long?

No trace? What about Pope Leo?

I think St. Leo deserves a thread. It seems to me, at least, that his papal claims were of quite a different nature than those later Roman Catholic popes who sited him after the Papal Reformation.

[Peter J]

The Roman Catholic claim that union was achieved at Florence is unsustainable.

What if we just say that a union was achieved at Florence, but it was considerably less successful than, say, the Union of Brest?

Let's say then that at Florence union was achievd with two Orthodox Churches

1.  the Church of Constantinople
2.  the Church of Russia
        (represented by its Metropolitan, a Constantinople appointee.)

Alright.

But even then there is no genuine union of Eastern and Western churches if the Orthodox people ultimately rejected it as a Robber Council, which is an historical reality. Genuine union of the East with the Latins would have to include the Orthodox people as a whole, not just an agreement with some of her hierarchs, or even all of her hierarchs.

As I mentioned earlier, I think the union that the Council of Florence achieved was less successful than the Union of Brest.  I say that because even those who accepted the Florentine Union, rejected it once they realized that most other Orthodox were rejecting it.

That distinguishes Brest from Florence how?

Actually, as Brest was supposedly the implimentation of Florence, don't think a distinction can be made.

I think that when I say "the Florentine Union", most readers understand that I mean the (extremely unsuccessful) union that took place in the mid-15th century, rather than any of the unions that took place a century and a half later like the Union of Brest.

But I agree that Brest implemented Florence.

[Peter J]

The Roman Catholic claim that union was achieved at Florence is unsustainable.

What if we just say that a union was achieved at Florence, but it was considerably less successful than, say, the Union of Brest?

Let's say then that at Florence union was achievd with two Orthodox Churches

1.  the Church of Constantinople
2.  the Church of Russia
        (represented by its Metropolitan, a Constantinople appointee.)

Alright.

But even then there is no genuine union of Eastern and Western churches if the Orthodox people ultimately rejected it as a Robber Council, which is an historical reality. Genuine union of the East with the Latins would have to include the Orthodox people as a whole, not just an agreement with some of her hierarchs, or even all of her hierarchs.

As I mentioned earlier, I think the union that the Council of Florence achieved was less successful than the Union of Brest.  I say that because even those who accepted the Florentine Union, rejected it once they realized that most other Orthodox were rejecting it.

There is probably as much warrant to dub the "Union of Brest" as the "Disunion of Brest."

Yes, technically. But of course, union was open to the rest of the Orthodox as well. They simply chose not to enter into full communion with Rome.

[Volnutt]

The Roman Catholic claim that union was achieved at Florence is unsustainable.

What if we just say that a union was achieved at Florence, but it was considerably less successful than, say, the Union of Brest?

Let's say then that at Florence union was achievd with two Orthodox Churches

1.  the Church of Constantinople
2.  the Church of Russia
        (represented by its Metropolitan, a Constantinople appointee.)

Alright.

But even then there is no genuine union of Eastern and Western churches if the Orthodox people ultimately rejected it as a Robber Council, which is an historical reality. Genuine union of the East with the Latins would have to include the Orthodox people as a whole, not just an agreement with some of her hierarchs, or even all of her hierarchs.

As I mentioned earlier, I think the union that the Council of Florence achieved was less successful than the Union of Brest.  I say that because even those who accepted the Florentine Union, rejected it once they realized that most other Orthodox were rejecting it.

That distinguishes Brest from Florence how?

Actually, as Brest was supposedly the implimentation of Florence, don't think a distinction can be made.

I think that when I say "the Florentine Union", most readers understand that I mean the (extremely unsuccessful) union that took place in the mid-15th century, rather than any of the unions that took place a century and a half later like the Union of Brest.

But I agree that Brest implemented Florence.

*snicker, snicker* He said "Brest"...

[ialmisry]

The Roman Catholic claim that union was achieved at Florence is unsustainable.

What if we just say that a union was achieved at Florence, but it was considerably less successful than, say, the Union of Brest?

Let's say then that at Florence union was achievd with two Orthodox Churches

1.  the Church of Constantinople
2.  the Church of Russia
        (represented by its Metropolitan, a Constantinople appointee.)

Alright.

But even then there is no genuine union of Eastern and Western churches if the Orthodox people ultimately rejected it as a Robber Council, which is an historical reality. Genuine union of the East with the Latins would have to include the Orthodox people as a whole, not just an agreement with some of her hierarchs, or even all of her hierarchs.

As I mentioned earlier, I think the union that the Council of Florence achieved was less successful than the Union of Brest.  I say that because even those who accepted the Florentine Union, rejected it once they realized that most other Orthodox were rejecting it.

There is probably as much warrant to dub the "Union of Brest" as the "Disunion of Brest."

Yes, technically. But of course, union was open to the rest of the Orthodox as well. They simply chose not to enter into full communion with Rome.

No, they chose to remain in full communion with Orthodox Rome by refusing to submit to the Ultramontanist Vatican.  Unfortunately, the Orthodox under the Vatican's minions in the Commonwealth weren't free to pursue that: the King decided for them.

[ialmisry]

The Roman Catholic claim that union was achieved at Florence is unsustainable.

What if we just say that a union was achieved at Florence, but it was considerably less successful than, say, the Union of Brest?

Let's say then that at Florence union was achievd with two Orthodox Churches

1.  the Church of Constantinople
2.  the Church of Russia
        (represented by its Metropolitan, a Constantinople appointee.)

Alright.

But even then there is no genuine union of Eastern and Western churches if the Orthodox people ultimately rejected it as a Robber Council, which is an historical reality. Genuine union of the East with the Latins would have to include the Orthodox people as a whole, not just an agreement with some of her hierarchs, or even all of her hierarchs.

As I mentioned earlier, I think the union that the Council of Florence achieved was less successful than the Union of Brest.  I say that because even those who accepted the Florentine Union, rejected it once they realized that most other Orthodox were rejecting it.

That distinguishes Brest from Florence how?

Actually, as Brest was supposedly the implimentation of Florence, don't think a distinction can be made.

I think that when I say "the Florentine Union", most readers understand that I mean the (extremely unsuccessful) union that took place in the mid-15th century, rather than any of the unions that took place a century and a half later like the Union of Brest.

But I agree that Brest implemented Florence.

it tried. with teeth.

[James2]

Previously it had been generally taught and believed in the Church of Rome that a Bishop of Rome is subject to Councils.  With Eugene's Bull that was stood on its head - the Pope was now superior to Councils and could not be judged by his peers, the ancient authority of bishops was removed.   

Eugene brought into existence the powers of the modern Papacy.  To reunify with us, you will have to destroy them.

I think it would be more accurate to attribute this development to Pope Gregory VII, if not even earlier.  The Dictatus Papae is consonant with the superiority of a Pope over a Council.  Thus, by the time of Pope Eugene IV there was in the West a centuries-old tradition supporting papal supremacy.

[James2]

Orthodox ecclesiology doesn't function quite in the manner described above by elijahmarie.

It is certainly inaccurate to say there is *no* primatial power in Orthodoxy; rather there is no *absolute* primatial power in Orthodoxy. Absolute power corrupts, as absolute independence corrupts. In Orthodoxy there is a proper balance of power, specifically sobernost, under the headship of Christ (cf. Ernst Benz below). In Orthodoxy bishops must call for the amen of the people. The people have a voice along with deacons and presbyters. This has worked out just fine for some 2000 years now.

Except that it hasn't.  If this approach had worked "just fine", the major schisms that took place after Ephesus and Chalcedon wouldn't have occurred, nor the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western churches.  The Orthodox people of Egypt rejected Chalcedon every bit as much as the Orthodox people of Greece rejected Florence.  So what makes the Egyptians wrong and the Greeks right?  I don't have the answer; I'm just asking the question.  Rome's answer does make some sense, but they've carried it way too far.

[xariskai]

Orthodox ecclesiology doesn't function quite in the manner described above by elijahmarie.

It is certainly inaccurate to say there is *no* primatial power in Orthodoxy; rather there is no *absolute* primatial power in Orthodoxy. Absolute power corrupts, as absolute independence corrupts. In Orthodoxy there is a proper balance of power, specifically sobernost, under the headship of Christ (cf. Ernst Benz below). In Orthodoxy bishops must call for the amen of the people. The people have a voice along with deacons and presbyters. This has worked out just fine for some 2000 years now.

Except that it hasn't.  If this approach had worked "just fine", the major schisms that took place after Ephesus and Chalcedon wouldn't have occurred, nor the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western churches.  The Orthodox people of Egypt rejected Chalcedon every bit as much as the Orthodox people of Greece rejected Florence.  So what makes the Egyptians wrong and the Greeks right?  I don't have the answer; I'm just asking the question.  Rome's answer does make some sense, but they've carried it way too far.

"You know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes." -2 Tim 1:15

"From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him" -John 6:66

"Even his brothers did not believe in Him" (Jn 7:5).


Truth, if there is such a thing, would still be such even if it was abandoned by everyone. Major schisms have been present from the earliest period of Christianity (2 Tim 1:15 etc.). I think Paul, and even Christ Himself might have understood your feelings, and perhaps your doubts too, but I doubt they would have agreed with your conclusion.

Your points notwithstanding I would still maintain the ecclesiology of the Eastern Church has worked just fine regardless of all the schisms, heresies, heterodoxies, unbeliefs, and martyrdoms added together if in her "we have found the true faith" (as we confess). If on the other hand the gates of hell have prevailed against our Church because there have been schisms, or if we are in a false Church, our faith in her is in vain. I can respect and empathize with your honest doubts; still, I find no reason personally to confess the wretchedness and/or demise of Eastern Christianity so easily as all that.

[Irish Hermit]

Previously it had been generally taught and believed in the Church of Rome that a Bishop of Rome is subject to Councils.  With Eugene's Bull that was stood on its head - the Pope was now superior to Councils and could not be judged by his peers, the ancient authority of bishops was removed.   

Eugene brought into existence the powers of the modern Papacy.  To reunify with us, you will have to destroy them.

I think it would be more accurate to attribute this development to Pope Gregory VII, if not even earlier.  The Dictatus Papae is consonant with the superiority of a Pope over a Council.  Thus, by the time of Pope Eugene IV there was in the West a centuries-old tradition supporting papal supremacy.

I have not spoken of Florence as a development but as a watershed in Roman Catholic ecclesiology, the transition from a conciliar Church to a papal Church.

The Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence commences with the belief that a Pope is subject to a Council and it ends with the fact that this is no longer so and everything, including Councils, are now subject to the Pope.  What had been a developing theory has now become, at the close of Florence and with the Bull Etsi non dubitemus,  unchallengeable doctrine.   The old orthodox order has been displaced, and a new order has been installed.

[Peter J]

Previously it had been generally taught and believed in the Church of Rome that a Bishop of Rome is subject to Councils.  With Eugene's Bull that was stood on its head - the Pope was now superior to Councils and could not be judged by his peers, the ancient authority of bishops was removed.   

Eugene brought into existence the powers of the modern Papacy.  To reunify with us, you will have to destroy them.

I think it would be more accurate to attribute this development to Pope Gregory VII, if not even earlier.  The Dictatus Papae is consonant with the superiority of a Pope over a Council.  Thus, by the time of Pope Eugene IV there was in the West a centuries-old tradition supporting papal supremacy.

I have not spoken of Florence as a development but as a watershed in Roman Catholic ecclesiology, the transition from a conciliar Church to a papal Church.

The Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence commences with the belief that a Pope is subject to a Council and it ends with the fact that this is no longer so and everything, including Councils, are now subject to the Pope.  What had been a developing theory has now become, at the close of Florence and with the Bull Etsi non dubitemus,  unchallengeable doctrine.   

I think that sentence hits the nail on the head. What had been developing, as James said, for centuries (a millennium, actually, if you go back to Pope Leo I) was made definitive at Florence: no longer could alternative views be held in the Church.

The 16th century confirms this. In the first place, those who rejected Papal Primacy/Supremacy had to leave the Church entirely (the Protestant Reformation). In the second place, those who entered into communion with the Church (e.g. the Union of Brest) had to accept Papal Primacy/Supremacy.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Second council of Lyon