Maybe you are right.
/207_MagicMass02.jpg)
From the left, Fr. Silvio Mantelli also known as Salles the Magician, Fr. Larry Lorenzoni, and the priest-clown, Fr. Paolo
I must have bene thinking of a different Church, like the one below.
Posted on 12/09/2008 5:52:09 AM PST by TexConfederate1861
Brother:
It seems to me that Charlemagne and the Franks seem to be the main cause of this whole mess. He wanted to tweak the Emperor of the East, so he pushed the Filioque and Leo IX until he got what he wanted. The Pope was more or less a puppet at the time by my reckoning.
You are right. The papacy at the time of Florence was very weak.
SL, Rome can return to its Latin Patristic roots at any time. It can return to the glorious Orthodoxy of its first 1000 years without becoming Greek or Arab or Slavic. As you likely know, it was Rome which came to the rescue of Orthodoxy time and again as heresies arose among the hierarchs and nobles of the Greek East. The Latin Patristic era was a time when Rome shown brightest because it was the firmest in Orthodox Christianity. And then things changed. Things can change again. +BXVI knows this. +BXVI is the closest to a Latin Father the world has seen in over 1000 years! Pray for God to be merciful and give him many, many years during which he can lead his patriarchate back to its roots and, as Kosta noted, “reunion by default”.
Cannot return because we never left. Have a blessed Christmas. : )
Maybe you are right.
From the left, Fr. Silvio Mantelli also known as Salles the Magician, Fr. Larry Lorenzoni, and the priest-clown, Fr. Paolo
I must have bene thinking of a different Church, like the one below.
From Annalex: >> Only on the Authority of an Ecumenical Council of the ENTIRE Church. That hasn’t happened yet. <<
From TC: >> The Council of Florence in 1438 explains:...”
The addition of the Filioque was approved by an ecumenical council, and not just an exclusively Western (Roman) one.
The Council of Florence was attended by representatives from throughout Eastern Orthodoxy, and ratified by these representatives of the Eastern church. At such a meeting, purposely held away from the menace of Avignon, the Eastern Patriarchs came to understand that the West had not altered doctrine, since the Son proceeds from the Father, that which proceeds from the Father and the Son proceeds ultimately from the Father alone.
Unfortunately, these Eastern patriarchs discovered on their return that political authority trumped their ecclesiastical authority. Thus, civil authorities continued to deliberately perpetuate the misunderstandings now understood to be false.
The priests who abused the liturgy will face God’s judgment for what they have done, whether they were conforming to the spirit of the age in America by mixing frivolity with worship, or the spirit of the age in the Soviet Union, where the Church became a political tool of the KGB.
In truth, we know that such priests, whether in America or in the Soviet Union, represented the glory contained within the sacred liturgy of the sadly divided Church.
ONE principle. That was what the Orthodox had problems with. They believed that there we thought there were two principles from which the Spirit is proceeds from. When we say "from the Father and the Son", they thought that we were confessing two principles.
Regards
>>>>It seems to me that Charlemagne and the Franks ... Pope was more or less a puppet at the time by my reckoning... <<<<
>>The papacy at the time of Florence was very weak.<<
Wow, Kosta. I’d expect better from you then to be off by 6 and a half centuries. The Council of Florence took place
in the 15th century.
In fairness to the Greeks,...
It was the fall of Constantinople which sealed the failure of the Council of Florence. Had the Roman-Catholic kings of the far west responded to the Pope’s pleas for a crusade to liberate Constantinople, the seat of an emperor who greatly supported reunification of the Church, the misdeeds of the long-excommunicated sackers of Constantinople (250 years earlier!) may have been forgiven, and those in support of reunification may have found themselves in considerable advantage. Instead, the failure to rescue Constantinople from the Turks only cemented the hostility of Greece against Italy.
It’s hardly inconceivable that part of the reason there was no reponse to the Pope’s call for a crusade for Constantinople was that the Western kings had little interest in seeing their influence dissipated among the many Eastern patriarchs. Florence took place only half a century after the Avignon schism, and the council (before moving to Florence) had witnessed its own schism. In fact, it’s quite plausible to suggest that while the Eastern bishops failed to re-introduce the papacy to the East, they rescued it in the West by giving the Pope an occasion to speak for all Christendom.
Obviously I meant to say MISrepresented:
The priests who abused the liturgy will face God’s judgment for what they have done, whether they were conforming to the spirit of the age in America by mixing frivolity with worship, or the spirit of the age in the Soviet Union, where the Church became a political tool of the KGB.
In truth, we know that such priests, whether in America or in the Soviet Union, MISrepresented the glory contained within the sacred liturgy of the sadly divided Church.
It depends upon what you mean by "return to its roots".
If you mean the way things were in 900 AD, that's not happening. NEITHER of us are going to return to the way things were in 900. Hesychasm will remain part and parcel of Eastern Orthodoxy. Sanctifying grace and our understanding of it vs. free will is not going to go away, despite NEITHER being subjected to what you would consider an Ecumenical Council. The Spirit has already spoken through the our respective Churches on some issues that were only in kernel form, theological opinions, during "900".
I am not about to deny that God has spoken in the East regarding "uncreated energies", NOR am I about to say that the West's view is completely mutually exclusive.
I can understand Benedict's desire to "return to its roots" when speaking of Liturgy. The Liturgy should have a greater sense of holiness, and some liturgists have abused the implementation of Vatican 2. I can understand searching our Patristic past when developing doctrines, RATHER than consulting modern cultural definitions and modes of thought. But remove dogmas already declared? That would be akin to admitting that the Spirit had left the Church for 1000 years. That is not what Benedict is speaking about in a "return to its roots" - which, I fear, is what you would desire - a return to 900 AD, a "do-over". Is the East about to deny it's own "infallibly declared" doctrines of "uncreated energies" and return to "its roots", before when such matters were not universally accepted and defined by the Church?
I hope this example can help you to see that neither Church is about to do away with already held doctrines. What we need to do is come together and see if some of these doctrines NEED to be universally held or if there is not room for complimentary points of view. We shouldn't expect you to become Western, nor should you expect us to become Eastern in particular matters that, quite frankly, are a bit esoteric. (like identifying God's energy with the light of the Transfiguration. Not a lot of Scriptural or Apostolic Tradition on that.)
Things can change again. +BXVI knows this. +BXVI is the closest to a Latin Father the world has seen in over 1000 years!
Yes, on things that ARE "changeable", like the Liturgy or explanations of our faith that do not contradict what has gone before. I am wondering if it is absolutely necessary for the Church, as a whole, to CHOOSE between Neo-Platonic or Aristotilean definitions of God... We are not about to eliminate Aquinas' work, nor you Palamas... I know Orthodoxy considers this very important - but is it necessary that the WEST also views God in this way? I am not so sure this is truly an Apostolic Revelation.
I do not have the answer in these matters. But God does, and we must put ourselves into His hands.
Regards
It’s hardly inconceivable that part of the reason there was no reponse to the Pope’s call for a crusade for Constantinople was that the Western kings had little interest in seeing their influence dissipated among the many Eastern patriarchs. Florence took place only half a century after the Avignon schism, and the council (before moving to Florence) had witnessed its own schism. In fact, it’s quite plausible to suggest that while the Eastern bishops failed to re-introduce the papacy to the East, they rescued it in the West by giving the Pope an occasion to speak for all Christendom.
Good post. It helps to explain why unification was bound to fail. Not theology, politics and lack of trust of the West. One wasn't a true Byzantium unless they had a firm hatred of Rome. Anything associated with Rome was hated, to include Aquinas. Thus, politically speaking, it just wasn't going to happen.
The only way we can achieve unification is if there is a grass-root movement in the East that frees itself from the slavery of hatred of the West. While doing reading on "uncreated energies", you could hardly avoid the hatred that still exists for "Papism". This unification isn't going to happen as long as the Catholic "strawman" is constantly dragged out and beaten up, as in the "encyclical" at the beginning of this thread.
Regards
This is true, but as everyone soon thereafter learned, the mind of the Eastern Church remained unconvinced, and still is. Legally, you can call Florence all you want, it failed at the main objective, to reach a true union. Therefore, the work of reunification has to start from the state of affairs before Florence, and therefore, from before the unilateral addition of the "filioque", in my opinion.
The good news is that, like with the rest of the Economy of Salvation, we know what the last chapter is going to be: we win, both East and West. The correct understanding of filioque as eternally and fundamentally single spiration from the Father and through the Son is confirmed by, for example, St. John of Damascus in his tree-branch-fruit explanation. So we should not worry about the "filioque", but we should worry very much about the lust for separation exemplified by the tone of this letter, and many others. We should also worry, as Kosta painfully reminded us, about our own condition post Vatican II. I think all these things are on the mend, -- as East is meeting West in our common struggles with militant atheism and militant Islam, and as Rome heals its internal rifts. However, one thing we should not do, -- neither side should not take the legalistic is-this-your-signature approach to ecumenism. It has to work its way through the hearts of the entire Church.
The Council of Florence was a travesty. The Eastern Bishops were FORCED to attend & sign. St. Mark of Ephesus was the only one who would not, and it cost him dearly. When the Bishops returned, most repudiated immediately.
The council of Florence was not a true Ecumenical Council, as the Orthodox Bishops were FORCED against their will to participate.
Wrong. They didn't waste all that time in Florence for nothing. Politics didn't allow it. Pure and simple.
Regards
Just as Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon was never signed by Pope +Leo I and is not recognized by the Latin Church (even though Leo's successors accepted it), and even thought the (second) VIII Ecumenical Council restoring +Photius was signed by a Pope the East recognizes only Seven Councils and the West doe snot count either canon XXVIII, or the second VIII Council restoring +Photius.
And just as the VI Ecumenical Council condemned Pope Honorius I for allowing heresy to fester on his watch, and despite the fact that the sitting pope signed acknowledge that Council, and the fact that all succeeding popes since that council cursed Honorius I for centuries to come, this has been reversed by the Latin Church since the Schism while officially still recognizing all Seven Councils.
The Council of Florence was approved by the hierarchy (save for one bishop) and the Roman Emperor, but ti was flatly reject by the people and the lower clergy. That's how the Orthodox Church works: the Church is not made up of clergy but of clergy+faithful.
The agreement was reached under duress of Turkish advances on Constantinople which fell to them few years later. There was also some anti-Latin bias, understandably, for sure, given that the 4th Crusade sacking Constantinople and imposing Latin Empire for 60 years happened only 230 years prior.
The proceedings of the Council of Florence indciate that the "agreement" was a band-aid, allowing the East to go on living as until then, and the West likewise, and that the Eastern patriarchs' autonomy and authority would remain the same. So no one was bound by anything. It was a council that satisfied the ends with whatever means.
Unfortunately, these Eastern patriarchs discovered on their return that political authority trumped their ecclesiastical authority. Thus, civil authorities continued to deliberately perpetuate the misunderstandings now understood to be false.
You are rewiritng the history dear friend. Maybe one of these days, when the Catholic side accepts canon XXVIII, and respects its signature on the condemnation of Honoroius I, and the restoration of +Photius, we can discuss the fine points of reconsidering the Council of Florence which still leaves out the decisions of the Council of Trent, the Vatican I and the Vatican II to negotiate.
>> The Council of Florence was a travesty. The Eastern Bishops were FORCED to attend & sign. St. Mark of Ephesus was the only one who would not, and it cost him dearly. When the Bishops returned, most repudiated immediately. <<
I’d love to see the armies that rounded up the Eastern bishops and brought them to Florence where they were “FORCED” to attend and sign. And any repudiation by certain bishops was not made as soon as they were safely away from Florence, but rather after their local congregations rejected them.
If your position is true: that all your bishops but one so lightly espoused what they inwardly knew to be heresy, what, pray tell, does that say about such men?
There is no comparison! Have you no conscience? The Soviets murdered tens of thousands of priests and bishops. The Church had no control over anything. The Soviets would close a church and demolish it without any accountability.
The Church in Russia did not "allow" itself to become a political tool of the KGB but was forced to. Religion was the number one enemy of the Bolsheviks.
Out of 50 churches that were open in Soviet-era Moscow, the only one that was never closed is the one where Patriarch Alexy II was entombed, the only one that was not desecrated.
Did the American clergy suffer the same persecution? Were there tens of tousands of murdered priests and bishops? Were there innumerous churches and monasteries razed to the ground?
Clown-"Masses" and other liturgical abominations are not the result of polticial repression. Unlike the Church in communist hell, the American Catholics did it all on their own, with a small courageous orthodox minority holding fast to their Patristic tradition, God bless them, while the rest went right along all on their own.
Your revisionism is making a mockery of the martyrdom of the souls of the faithful that perished under communism on account of their faith in Christ, and of the repression the Church suffered in communist countries.
“If your position is true: that all your bishops but one so lightly espoused what they inwardly knew to be heresy, what, pray tell, does that say about such men?”
Doubtless that they were weak men with few scruples about selling out their Faith. Likely, their skulls pave the floor of Hell. The Faith, however, was preserved by the Laos tou Theou as it is to this day. By God’s great mercy, Orthodox Christians are not burdened with the particularly Latin affliction of groveling hierarch worship. Occasionally we get a hierarch who thinks our role is to pay, pray and obey, to grovel.... We remove them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.