June 6, 1439, an agreement was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, St. Mark of Ephesus. Patriarch Joseph II reposed two days later. The Greeks then insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could only be achieved by the agreement of an Eastern Synod. In August 1441 the Oriental Orthodox(not all were invited) were convened for a council.Why would the Eastern Church have need for ratification when all who attended Florence agreed and signed? 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.
Basic scenario: A council is convened, bishops representing the whole church are present and accept and sign an agreement. Some time later, other hierarchs and the populous in the Orthodox Church rejected the decisions of Florence. A council was agreed upon, then was rejected. What am I missing?
I apologize for playing the devil's advocate.
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.
"Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
-oOo-Skullduggery at the Council
Almost simultaneously with these measures the Patriarch of Constantinople died, 10 June; not, however, before he had drawn up and signed a declaration in which he admitted the Filioque, purgatory, and the papal primacy. Nevertheless the reunion of the Churches was not yet an accomplished fact. The Greek representatives insisted that their aforesaid declarations were only their personal opinions; and as they stated that it was still necessary to obtain the assent of the Greek Church in synod assembled, seemingly insuperable difficulties threatened to annihilate all that had so far been achieved.
Nihil Obstat. September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
"TO THE OTHER afflictions which the Orthodox delegation suffered in Florence was added the death of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Patriarch was found dead in his room. On the table lay (supposedly) his testament, Extrema Sententia, consisting in all of some lines in which he declared that he accepted everything that the Church of Rome confesses. And then: "In like manner I acknowledge the Holy Father of Fathers, the Supreme Pontiff and Vicar of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Pope of Old Rome. Likewise, I acknowledge purgatory. In affirmation of this, I affix my signature.""There is no doubt whatever that Patriarch Joseph did not write this document.
The German scholar Frommann, who made a detailed investigation of the "Testament" of Patriarch Joseph, says: "This document is so Latinized and corresponds so little to the opinion expressed by the Patriarch several days before, that its spuriousness is evident."  The ''Testament" appears in the history of the Council of Florence quite late; contemporaries of the Council knew nothing of it.
 After Hefele, Histoire des Conciles, vol. VII, pt. II, pp. 1015sqhttp://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stmark.aspx