Why do Orthodox NOT accept the Council of Florence?

[BuckeyeStu]

Hello Christian brethren,

I am not trying to ruffle any feathers or launch a theological debate and I apologize in advance if this topic has been beaten into the ground. But I am new here and have an honest historical question, Why do the Orthodox not accept the Council of Florence?

The Council was attended and endorsed by:

The Roman(Byzantine) Emperor- historically had been the key figure in Eastern Christianity(Caesaropapism).

The both the current Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople(who died shortly after) and his successor.

Representatives of the other 3 Patriarchial sees of the Pentarchy(Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem).

The Metropolitan of the Russian Church.


Now of the 700 reps of the Orthodox Church only Mark of Ephesus refused to agree to to the to reunion at Florence. How can a single from bishop from Ephesus nullify the an entire ecumenical council? After all there were even 3 bishops who refused to agree to the first council of Nicaea and they were rightfully excommunicated and exiled. What makes Florence a different situation than Nicaea?

Again I am not here to start a theological dispute and just need held with a historical question. Thanks in advance.

 

[BuckeyeStu]

Also, as i mentioned in my previous post I am new to the website, so if this is the wrong forum to post this thread in please move it to the correct one. Thank you.

 

[fuerein]

The simplest answer is that in the Orthodox view a council is not ecumenical until it is accepted by the entire church. It doesn't matter who attends and how many bishops sign off on the council. The church as a whole (the clergy, the laity, the monastics, etc... everyone) must accept the council as being correct. The Council of Florence thus, while being accepted by the majority of the bishops in attendance was never accepted by the Church in toto.

 

[ArmyMatt]

yeah, basically what fuerein said. it has to be accepted by the whole Church. even for a council that is ecumenical, it often also takes a lot of time for it to be declared ecumenical too.

 

[BuckeyeStu]

The simplest answer is that in the Orthodox view a council is not ecumenical until it is accepted by the entire church. It doesn't matter who attends and how many bishops sign off on the council. The church as a whole (the clergy, the laity, the monastics, etc... everyone) must accept the council as being correct. The Council of Florence thus, while being accepted by the majority of the bishops in attendance was never accepted by the Church in toto.

Again I hope not to offend anyone, but this response begs the question What about the previous Ecumenical council that created schisms. For example the council of Ephesus in 431 was rejected by the Nestorians who split and founded the Assyrian church and also the Council of Chalcedon was rejected by the monophysites who also split and founded the Oriental orthodox church. Would these be considered instances of councils not being accepted by the church as a whole? What are the differences in your eyes between Florence and those 2 councils. Again I thank you guys for taking the time to answer my questions.

 

[buzuxi02]

The council of Florence was not a free council. The Orthodox party was under house arrest for approximately 14 years. The Patriarch of Constantinople actually died of old age before he ever signed the acts of the council. After the council of Florence, local churches began holding their own councils rejecting Florence starting with the Jerusalem church.

The council of Ephesus did not become 'ecumenical' till two years later in 433 a.d. In 433 Patriarch John of Antioch reconciled with St Cyril of Alexandria. John of Antioch and the antiochan party held a rival council in Ephesus, when Cyril started without them. The epistle of Cyril to John known as the agreement of union written in 433 was recieved by the 4th ecumenical council which acknowledged the antiochan usage of the 2 natures of Christ.

The Assyrian church was not found by Nestorius or their followers. Nestorianism was anathemized in the third council and as persecution against them increased, a remnant of nestorians traveled outside the borders of the empire and found refuge in the assyrian church. The nestorians influenced the Assyrian theology somewhat but they always held to the antiochan school of influence which emphasized the 2 natures of Christ and less on the oneness of the hypostatic union (the oneness of the hypostasis is what Cyril emphasized which was the emphasis of the alexandrian school).

Chalcedon was the most attended council with 630 bishops present. It anathemized Dioscorus the patriarch of alexandria. After the council monophysites still occupied patriarchates. The Alexandrian church became divided over the ethnic greeks and ethnic egyptians (copts), the greeks for the council while the egyptians against it, but for about 100 years after chalcedon, it was still one church counting the same patriarchs. The 5th ecumenical council was meant to reconcile the factions, but failed so the monophysite adherents were eventually anathemized. What people dont realize is that the patriarchate of Alexandria is still there and is still Orthodox, but hardly known since the greek alexandrians faithful to chalcedon were ousted in the 1950's and most of the Orthodox under Alexandria are now outside Egypt made up of immigrant communities and converts from missionary work in Africa . The Coptic patriarchate is the splinter group of egyptians which broke off, the last bishop of the unified Alexandrian church was deposed and ousted for promoting monophysitism, the ethnic egyptians continued recognizing him as their leader till his death, after that they began electing their own bishops, the coptic bishops were never part of the diptychs and never commemorated in the empire. Soon after Alexandria fell to the muslims, the majority of copts over time converted to Islam.

 

[E.C.]

Hello Christian brethren,

I am not trying to ruffle any feathers or launch a theological debate and I apologize in advance if this topic has been beaten into the ground. But I am new here and have an honest historical question, Why do the Orthodox not accept the Council of Florence?

The Council was attended and endorsed by:

The Roman(Byzantine) Emperor- historically had been the key figure in Eastern Christianity(Caesaropapism).

The both the current Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople(who died shortly after) and his successor.

Representatives of the other 3 Patriarchial sees of the Pentarchy(Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem).

The Metropolitan of the Russian Church.


Now of the 700 reps of the Orthodox Church only Mark of Ephesus refused to agree to to the to reunion at Florence. How can a single from bishop from Ephesus nullify the an entire ecumenical council? After all there were even 3 bishops who refused to agree to the first council of Nicaea and they were rightfully excommunicated and exiled. What makes Florence a different situation than Nicaea?

Again I am not here to start a theological dispute and just need held with a historical question. Thanks in advance.

(Responding to the underlined first)
Remember St. Athanasius? About 95% of the entire Christian world had fallen to Arianism and yet God through this mere deacon from Alexandria helped most of them realize their error. So same principle with regards to the bishops.


Now for the rest of the stuff.

Remember that the laity also have the Holy Spirit within them. The Church encompasses every person, every last bit of theology down to the fine print. The emperors and bishops, being in positions of authority, are to be responsible for the well-being of the people. Unfortunately the emperors and bishops, just like the rest of us, can be lead astray and into deception.

The Council of Florence, to put it simply, was one of those times. If you've ever done something stupid and had somebody tell or yell at you "Do you realize exactly WHAT you just did???" and then realized what you did and exactly how much of a mistake it was; than you have some idea how the emperor and bishops felt after the Council.

The council of Florence was not a free council. The Orthodox party was under house arrest for approximately 14 years. The Patriarch of Constantinople actually died of old age before he ever signed the acts of the council. After the council of Florence, local churches began holding their own councils rejecting Florence starting with the Jerusalem church.

With this bit of information, I think it is suffice to say that the illegitimacy of the Council of Florence is set in stone here.


Ask yourself, what would happen if the Eastern Orthodox Church held the Roman pope under house arrest for fourteen years at the end of which he proclaimed the Orthodox East and the Roman Catholic West to be united? Wouldn't that seem a little fishy to you?

What are the differences in your eyes between Florence and those 2 councils. Again I thank you guys for taking the time to answer my questions.

Florence was about politics. The other two about Christology.

 

[Alexander Nevsky]

The Council of Florence was not accepted by the citizens of the Empire. Genadios Scholarios (Patriach of Constantinople) said referring to those who endorsed the pseudo-council “O unhappy Romans [i.e. Byzantines], why have you forsaken the truth? Why do you not trust in God, instead of in the Franks?” He also predicted that the City (Constantinople) will be lost as a result of this Apostasy. The reason that Mark Eugenikos is considered by the Church a Saint and a “Pillar of Orthodoxy” is that he defended the Church in one of its darkest moments.

 

[Gnostophorrion]

I discussed this with Fr. Anthony just recently ~ it was made clear that the Orthodox do not accept any councils as Ecumenical unless *all* the Bishops are present. The same was said about Vatican 1 and Vatican II.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I discussed this with Fr. Anthony just recently ~ it was made clear that the Orthodox do not accept any councils as Ecumenical unless *all* the Bishops are present. The same was said about Vatican 1 and Vatican II.

this isn't true because Rome was at neither of the first two Ecumenical Councils, and Rome didn't even know that the 2nd was going on at the time

 

[Gnostophorrion]

[edit]

 

[Gnostophorrion]

this isn't true because Rome was at neither of the first two Ecumenical Councils, and Rome didn't even know that the 2nd was going on at the time

I am no longer going to discuss Catholicism and Rome in the Orthodox fora.

In order to comply with the forum rules.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I am no longer going to discuss Catholicism and Rome in the Orthodox fora.

In order to comply with the forum rules.

we're not, my point was that all bishops do not have to be present, for the council to be deemed Ecumenical, and this was before the Schism, so Rome was Orthodox back then

 

[BuckeyeStu]

Thank you all for your responses, they were most helpful. It is true that if the bishops were forced or persuaded to sign the document under duress then that part of the council would be invalid. From what I have read, it seems that if there was any duress, it was not caused by pressure from the Bishop of Rome but from the Eastern Emperor who wanted Rome to finance a new crusade against the Turks, is this how the Orthodox also see the situation?

this isn't true because Rome was at neither of the first two Ecumenical Councils, and Rome didn't even know that the 2nd was going on at the time

Your point is correct, but your facts are not entirely accurate. The Bishop of Rome was represented at the first ecumenical council of Nicaea by two Roman priests named Victor and Vincentius and also Hosius the Latin Bishop of Cordova(modern spain) who presided over the council for the Pope.

The first ecumenical council of Constantinople was not attended by the Bishop of Rome nor his representatives because it was a regional synod intended only for the Eastern Church. However it's documents were so widely accepted as orthodox that the council was elevated to the status of Ecumenical at the council of Chalcedon.

 

[ArmyMatt]

oh I know he had representation, that wasn't my point. someone posted earlier that EVERY bishop had to be present. and this was not the case for either of the first two. so I agree totally with what you said, I hope I clarified things.

 

[Sphinx777]

The Council of Florence (originally Council of Basel) was an Ecumenical Council of bishops and other ecclesiastics of the Roman Catholic Church. It began in 1431 in Basel, Switzerland, and became known as the Council of Ferrara after its transfer to Ferrara was decreed by Pope Eugene IV to convene in 1438. The council transferred to Florence in 1439 because of the danger of plague at Ferrara, and because the city of Florence had agreed, against future payment, to finance the Council. The initial location at Basel reflected the desire among parties seeking reform to meet outside the territories of the Papacy, the Holy Roman Empire, or the kings of Aragon and France, whose influences the council hoped to avoid. Ambrogio Traversari attended the Council of Basel as legate of Pope Eugene IV.

The council was convened at a period when the Conciliar movement was strong and the authority of the papacy weak. Under pressure for ecclesiastical reform Pope Martin V sanctioned a decree of the Council of Constance (9 October 1417) obliging the papacy to summon general councils periodically. At the expiration of the first term fixed by this decree, Pope Martin V complied by calling a council at Pavia. Due to an epidemic the location transferred almost at once to Siena (see Council of Siena) and disbanded—owing to circumstances still imperfectly known—just as it had begun to discuss the subject of reform (1424).

The next council fell due at the expiration of seven years in 1431; Martin V duly convoked it for this date to the town of Basel, and selected to preside over it the cardinal Julian Cesarini, a well-respected prelate. Martin himself, however, died before the opening of the synod.

The council at Basel opened with only a few bishops and abbots attending, but it grew rapidly and to make its numbers greater gave the lower orders a majority over the bishops. It adopted an anti-papal attitude, proclaimed the superiority of the Council over the Pope and prescribed an oath to be taken by every Pope on his election. When the Council was moved from Basel to Ferrara in 1438, some remained at Basel, claiming to be the Council. They elected Amadeus VIII, Duke of Savoy, as Antipope. Driven out of Basel in 1448, they moved to Lausanne, where Felix V, the Pope they had elected and the only claimant to the papal throne who ever took the oath that they had prescribed, resigned. Next year, they decreed the closure of what for them was still the Council of Basel.

The Council transferred to Ferrara in 1438 and to Florence in 1439 had meanwhile successfully negotiated reunification with several Eastern Churches, reaching agreements on such matters as papal primacy, purgatory, and the word "Filioque" added in the West to the Nicene Creed. The most important of these unions, that with the Eastern Orthodox Church, though accepted by all but one of the Greek bishops at the Council, was rejected by popular sentiment and came to a complete end with the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The Council also declared the Basel group heretics and excommunicated them; and the superiority of the Pope over the Councils was affirmed in the bull Etsi non dubitemus of 20 April 1441.

 

[Mikeb85]

Hello Christian brethren,

I am not trying to ruffle any feathers or launch a theological debate and I apologize in advance if this topic has been beaten into the ground. But I am new here and have an honest historical question, Why do the Orthodox not accept the Council of Florence?

Because it was rejected not only by St. Mark of Ephesus, but also by all the other local Churches shortly after... Yes, many Greek bishops did consent to it, but only under threat, and later pretty much all of them rejected it. This is why it has never been recognized as a valid council - at best it could be considered a robber council...

Also keep in mind that the council did not end after the Orthodox left it. The council also created a schism within the Roman Church, elected an antipope, etc... Hardly an example of an authoritative council.

 

[MariaRegina]

Because it was rejected not only by St. Mark of Ephesus, but also by all the other local Churches shortly after... Yes, many Greek bishops did consent to it, but only under threat, and later pretty much all of them rejected it. This is why it has never been recognized as a valid council - at best it could be considered a robber council...

Also keep in mind that the council did not end after the Orthodox left it. The council also created a schism within the Roman Church, elected an antipope, etc... Hardly an example of an authoritative council.

The things that went on during that council were appalling. The poor Orthodox Christians who came to that disreputable city.

 

[Macarius]

I would only add one thing:

The council was rejected because it proclaimed un-truth. The criterion for a council is not in formal rules, or having the right bishops, or following some rubric-like form of proclamation, or being in the right place, or being presided over by the right city, or any of that.

The criterion for a council is truth. Councils can enshrine and further define tradition, but they cannot modify or change Holy Tradition. Since Florence sought to declare papal monarchy as Holy Tradition (implying that one was less-than-fully-Christian if one didn't believe in papal monarchy), it was rejected, as this was not the historic position of the Church.

Rather, in the past (prior to the schism) the Church had accepted a diverse set of views on the role of the papacy. There was a marked and gradual growth of the papal-monarch view in the West, but there were some saints (even in the West) who outright rejected papal monarchy (including Pope St. Gregory the Great). In the East, it is almost without dispute that the prevailing model was some hybrid of conciliarism and church-state synergy.

The attempt by the Gregorian reformers of the 11th c. to make ONE vision of Church government absolute (and to re-write canon law and church history in order to give it the appearance of Holy Tradition) partially caused the schism. It certainly maintained and entrenched the schism. Since Florence was part of the continuing attempt to legitimize this absolutization of papal monarchy, it was rejected by the Orthodox Church.

My two cents...

Forgive me,
Macarius