Wrong. NO ONE initially went along with the Latins when they first met at Ferrara. It was only after nearly a dozen sessions on the filioque did the East began to admit that the West continued to believe the same thing all along and the change was to combat a heresy, not to change a teaching. The statements made by the Latins and the Greeks to this effect can be found on the internet. ONE principle.
The "treason" had nothing to do with religion, but with coming back and trying to correct all the lies that were previously told about the Latins corrupting the Church via heresy. Remember, these SAME bishops were responsible for incorrectly interpreting the underlying beliefs of Catholics. It is natural that they were not happy to admit they had misjudged the West.
I can imagine the problems faced when these bishops came back and told them that the West still believed in the same thing, when the West had been previously villified by practically all clergy - and militarily, the Constantinople affair was still an affront in their minds.
No, Kosta. The lay REFUSED to listen to the theological facts - and so the Ecumenical Council of Florence (which both East and West signed to during the FIRST session, otherwise, they knew it would have no force) was rejected by the East because they refused to admit they had misjudged the West and were not about to give up their hatred.
Maybe after another 1000 years.
Regards
Either the Latin Church wants to retun to her Patristic roots or wants to absorb others into her fold. Which is it?
Either the Latin Church wants to retun to her Patristic roots or wants to absorb others into her fold. Which is it?