Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: dangus; annalex; Kolokotronis; TexConfederate1861; jo kus
The addition of the Filioque was approved by an ecumenical council, and not just an exclusively Western (Roman) one

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.

37 posted on 12/10/2008 10:18:21 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: kosta50

Are you serious? The EASTERN Church doesn’t recognize Canon 28; how can you demand that of the WESTERN Church?

>> 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. <<

By flatly rejected, don’t you mean that the objectors abandoned the reception of sacraments until the Florentine Council was denounced? Hardly “sensuum fidelis!” Are sheep righteous if they will not follow their shepherd? Why have councils and bishops if their decrees are only valid if they people wish to regard them as valid?


44 posted on 12/10/2008 10:57:41 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson