Is protestantism just "orthodoxy" minus asthetics and patriarch

Is protestantism just "orthodoxy" minus asthetics and patriarch

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >best theologians just quote the Bible with little commentary
    >he actually believes this is a bad thing

  2. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Marian apparitions
    Nope, just the catholic version of them. Orthodox have saints that saw her in visions too.
    >creating heresies
    How? They were literally the ones who fought against those and condemned them in councils. They just appeared then and there, same with the west. Protestants literally revived.
    By that logic, the catholics also did it and had to insert the filioque to to exaggerate it.
    >western rite
    Catholics have byzantine, copt and chaldean rites, so your point falls apart.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      the filioque simply hangs on the authority of the pope, does he have the authority to do si, well we believe he can do it.
      if it was about adding to the creed well the form that is read in the orthodox churches is not the original nicean creed but edited version done by the fathers in the council of constantinople I, so editions to it is made, only in this case its made by a council not by the pope, so to answer the question about the filioque we must answer the question about the authority of Rome first which is a conversation by itself!

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        The problem with this is the fact that up until at the council of florence, RC claimed the filioque was in the councils when it wasn't.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous
          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The filioque, at least the Vatican 1 view, also doesn't work because St Cyril responded and disagreed with this interpretation of it.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Gemistes
            Gemistos Plethon? Or someone else?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, him.
            >add entire sentences to the creed in the council of constinople and then blame Rome from doing just the same thing
            St Mark of Ephesus explained the two were seen as the same creed, along with all councils talking about not adding to it.
            >also since you brought the matter of the council of florence forth, why exactly don't you adhere to the coucil that your own patriachs and Emperor both submitted to the authority of the pope and the filioque; instead you follow the only guy who refused to sign, mark of ephesus and that patriach that the turks installed in Constantinople to undo the union, thats literally like the arians following arius anyway despite the council of nicea.
            Because the council was full of forgeries by the latins, they also used political and military blackmail on Constantinopole, which was the only one they really signed with. Here's an article detailing all sources.
            https://alexandros0828.substack.com/p/
            Also Pope Eugenius literally said that since St Mark of Ephesus didn't sign it , “Then we have accomplished nothing!” >Syropoulus, Memoirs X, 15; Les Memoires (Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1971), p. 496, quoted in John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology p. 112
            >anyway my issue with the orthobros on the filioque isn't about whether it belongs in the creed or not but rather their lack of believe that the spirit actually does procced from the son, a failure to believe in that is heresy.
            Because the Son is not a cause, per St Maximus the Confessor's letter, then it doesn't make sense to put it in the creed since this refers to what orthodox call economic proccession.
            Legit, never heard an orthobro deny economic proccession.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Forgot to mention the pic is from David Erhan's channel and the guy is friends with Dyer, the centre of most orthoboys, who I don't really follow.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >St Mark of Ephesus explained the two were seen as the same creed, along with all councils talking about not adding to it.
            more of an excuse why would a different council add to the supposedly unchangable words of the creed.
            >Because the council was full of forgeries by the latins, they also used political and military blackmail on Constantinopole, which was the only one they really signed with.
            in the conclusion of the council the patriarch of constantiople, along with the entire greek clergy exception being mark ofc, also the bull of union had been signed by the representatives of alexandria antioch and jerusalem along with isidore of kiev, the head of the Russian church and ofc had the blessing of the emperor, so by all standards the council is ecumenical and as arian was condemned in nicea the same should have had happened to mark of ephesus instead ofc idk making him a saint. also since when the objection of one voice in a council overrides everyone else in the council, also i would need an objective standard to determine why would you tke a council as ecumenical and binding while rejecting others specially florence.
            >Because the Son is not a cause, per St Maximus the Confessor's letter, then it doesn't make sense to put it in the creed since this refers to what orthodox call economic proccession.
            Legit, never heard an orthobro deny economic proccession
            i highly suggest watching that explanation given by one of the greatest mind i could fing on the internet on the topic of the trinity and the procession of the spirit and the error of the greeks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rrzo55G364&list=PLGVSKByrYzss4weDvPDa-2SANNmPrxaqD&index=7

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            That substack I linked to literally debunks this claim. I will just copy paste that section and the links after it.
            I want to make it clear that I am not arguing for the 19th century “receptionism” as articulated by Aleksey Khomiakov. Perry Robinson’s article Against Khomiakov clearly shows the problems with it. Rather, as will be shown below, the council lacked Patriarchal ratification. Before I go into how the Council was received in the East, its worth mentioning how it was received by the Greeks already in Italy. Despite the pretense of unity, none of the Greeks took an active part in the Latin rite liturgy that was celebrated in Florence together with the pope, nor did they accept the unleavened Eucharist. 34 Later when they waited in Venice before returning back to Constantinople, the Doge encouraged them to serve the Byzantine liturgy at St. Marks Cathedral, but they were reluctant. When they eventually did serve it though, they used their own altar cloth and vessels, omitted the pope’s name from the diptychs, and sang the Creed without the filioque. 35 “After two years of prolonged debate and the solemn proclamation of ecclesiastical union, absolutely nothing had changed.” 36 When the Greeks finally arrived back in Constantinople (February 1440) almost all of them already regretted their decisions at Florence.37 The union had so little support among the people of Constantinople that it took unionist Patriarch Metrophanes II (1440-43) until Pentecost, (i.e almost four months), before he included the popes name in the dyptichs.38 In 1441 when Isidore of Kiev who represented Russia went to Moscow, he held a service in the Ascension cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. During the service the pope was commemorated and the union decree was read, but within four days he was in prison on the charges of heresy.39

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Much of the Roman Catholic argument hinges on the fact that the representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs accepted the union. The problem with this line of reasoning, however, is that Patriarchs have the right to reject the decision of their legates, and until ratified by the Patriarch they are not considered legally binding.40 Although it seems Patriarch Philotheus of Alexandria initially accepted the decision of his legates and signed on the union, during a council in Jerusalem in 1442, he, along with the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem, rejected Florence as “dirty, anticanonical, and tyrannical.”41 Moreover, the signing of the union decree by the proxies of the Eastern Patriarchs went against the written instructions given to them by the Patriarchs. They had told them not to accept any alteration to the Creed in accordance with the decisions of the previous Ecumenical Councils and church Fathers.42 That the Eastern Patriarchs rejected the Florentine union in 1442 clearly substantiates that the representatives had in fact contradicted their instructions. In sum, the only Patriarchates to accept the council of Florence in the East were Constantinople, and for a very brief time Alexandria. The Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, Georgia, and Serbia, along with the Metropolitans of Moscow and Cyprus, never accepted it. Despite this, (and to his credit) Pope Eugene “did not forget his promises to help the Greeks…”43 In total the army he managed to assemble numbered about 16,000. But, in 1444 it was disastrously defeated by the Ottomans at the Battle of Varna, with King Ladislas III of Poland, and Cardinal Cesarini himself being among the fallen. This defeat effectively sealed the fate of Constantinople.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Speaking of Constantinople, Emperor Constantine XI (1449-1453) struggled to implement the Florentine union, so much so that in 1451 a frustrated Pope Nicholas V (1447-55) wrote to him, informing him that no western aid would be coming unless they fully accepted the union decree and included the popes name in the diptychs. What Gennadius labored so hard to prevent came to pass on 12 December 1452. In the Great Chruch of St. Sophia there was celebrated a solemn Liturgy in the presence of the Emperor and the senate, priests, and deacons, and the throng of the populace — the whole city of Constantinople, so wrote Isidore later — when the Pope and the Patriarch Gregory were commemorated in the diptychs and prayed for, and the decree of union of the Council of Florence proclaimed. To what degree this acceptance by the Constantinopolitans was genuine cannot be assessed. […] Isidore asserts that till the capture of the city it was generally and consistently observed.44 Five months later Sultan Mehmed II (d. 1481) took the city, and Gennadius II Scholarius (d. 1473), who had become the leader of the anti-unionist after St. Mark of Ephesus death, became the first Patriarch of Constantinople under Ottoman rule. Both Gennadius II and the Metropolitan of Moscow, were convinced that the acceptance of Florence by the Greeks had caused the fall of Constantinople.45 In 1484, with the participation of the four eastern patriarchates, the Florentine union was officially rejected at a Constantinopolitan synod.46

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Finally the sources.
            35
            Syropoulus, Memoirs 11.9 (V. Laurent, Les Memoires, 530).
            36
            A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque History of a Doctrinal Controversy, p. 171. My emphasis. The papally approved Chieti Document lays out that true unity is expressed by Eucharistic communion. This obviously further implies that Florence was not received.
            37
            Doukas, Historia Turco-Byzantina of Doukas, crit. ed. Vasile Grecu (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romilne, 1958), 315. See George Demacopoulos, "The Popular Reception of the Council of Florence in Constantinople (1439-1453)," St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 43 (1999): 37-53), quoted in Edward Siecienski, The Papacy and the Orthodox, p.337: “As soon as the hierarchs came ashore, the Constantinopolitans . . . embraced them and asked, “How are you? What news do you bring from the synod? Have we gained the victory?” They replied, “No, we have betrayed our faith. We have exchanged piety for impiety. We have renounced the pure sacrifice and become azymites!”
            38
            Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence, p. 352
            39
            Alfeyev, Orthodox Christianity Vol 1, p.135-136
            40
            For example, after the Council of Chalcedon, Emperor Marcian and Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople, “already at odds with Leo over the twenty eighth canon, grew increasingly impatient with the pope’s failure to offer formal ratification of the decrees of the council.” Fr Richard Price, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon: Volume 3, p.79. Why else would they be mad if Pope St. Leos legates decision to accept Chalcedon was enough?
            Another example, in 863 during the “Photian Controversy”, Pope Nicholas I annulled the decision of his legates to recognize the legitimacy of St. Photius election as Patriarch of Constantinople. Edward Siecienski, The Papacy and the Orthodox, p. 222, referencing Francis Dvornik, The Photian Schism.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            41
            Alfeyev, Orthodox Christianity Vol 1, p.136, quoted in Edward Siecienski, The Papacy and the Orthodox, p.337.
            I can already sense a Roman Catholic responding that it makes little sense for a Patriarch to change his mind on accepting a council. They should keep in mind the example of Pope John VIII in 879 though. He accepted the pro-Photian council as the true 8th Ecumenical Council, which had condemned the filioque, and rejected and annulled the anti-Photian council of 869. Two centuries later, during the Gregorian reform, the Papacy erased it from history and retroactively confirmed the anti-Photian council as the true 8th Ecumenical Council instead. Edward Siecienski, The Papacy and the Orthodox, p.229 (Check footnote 172)
            42
            Mario Pilavakis, Markos Eugenikos’s First Antirrhetic Against Manuel Calecas’s On Essence and Energy, p.51. He references St. Marks of Ephesus brother, John Eugenicus, Syropoulus, along with the Georgian bishop, who argued this fact.
            43
            Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence, p. 327
            44
            Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence, p. 387
            45
            Edward Siecienski, The Papacy and the Orthodox, p.338, quoting Doukas, Historia Turco-Byzantina of Doukas, 317 (Eng. trans: Geeanakoplos, Byzantium: Church, Society and Civilization, 388): “Wretched Romans, how you have gone astray! You ave rejected the hope of God trusted in the strength of Franks; you have lost your piety along with your city which is about to be destroyed. Lord have mercy on me. I testify before you that I am innocent of such transgression!”
            46
            Papally approved Alexandria Document, 1.19. Also mentioned in Edward Siecienski, The Papacy and the Orthodox, p.338

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Vaticancatholic are sedevacantists, who literally are separated and don't acknowledge popes past Vatican II, which kinda defeats the whole idea of papal infallibility.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            quoting his resourses doesn't mean i agree with him about that sedevacanism thing, i just see he is extremely well learned man when it comes to theology.
            for me sedes are either extremely delusional about the current papacy to the point where they would break logic itself by saying some oxymoronic stuff like "there is no salvation outside the church... but the pope is somehow not the pope.. also i am somehow catholic despite denying the papacy itself"

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yeah, him.
            There‘s something rancid about anti-Christian pagans and Muslims being such strong and accepted opponents of Christian unity. Does the Greek side not see anything suspect with this?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            He was friends with Bessarion who was pro-union.
            >later even Cardinal and “Latin Patriarch of Constantinople”, Bessarion, though much loved by Roman Catholics, should perhaps not be, since:
            >His monumental Refutations of the Blasphemies Directed Against Plato represents a manifesto of the principles which constitute the philosophy of his master, Pletho. The letter of totally pagan inspiration… seems even to indicate that he was a secret member of Plethos pagan sect. The presence, in Bessarion’s library, of Pletho’s autograph with the sacred ordo of the sect seems to confirm the fact, which can certainly not be disproved by Bessarion’s long, honorable diplomatic service in the curia of the humanist popes… Greek in spirit he remained… but how much of a Christian theologian?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Also source.
            John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology p. 113

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >prohibit additions been made to the creed
          add entire sentences to the creed in the council of constinople and then blame Rome from doing just the same thing
          also since you brought the matter of the council of florence forth, why exactly don't you adhere to the coucil that your own patriachs and Emperor both submitted to the authority of the pope and the filioque; instead you follow the only guy who refused to sign, mark of ephesus and that patriach that the turks installed in Constantinople to undo the union, thats literally like the arians following arius anyway despite the council of nicea.
          anyway my issue with the orthobros on the filioque isn't about whether it belongs in the creed or not but rather their lack of believe that the spirit actually does procced from the son, a failure to believe in that is heresy.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's not the first time the Papacy has publically lied, look at the Donation of Constantine.

  3. 8 months ago
    Dirk

    No

  4. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Eastern-Orthodox and Roman-Catholics have much more in common with each other than either have with Protestants. The prottiest of the low church prots in particular are arguably closer to Moslems and israelites.

  5. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >contraceptives
    anyone who supports birth control forever chemical estrogen in the drinking water and a way for roasties to frick chad consequence-free is in the wrong

  6. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Ecumenism
    That's literally a Catholic thing though

    • 8 months ago
      Nega-Dirk

      It’s an everyone thing.
      Ecumanism isn’t heretical and people who say it is are poorly catechised or LARPers (or both).

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nah, saying ecumenism is bad is a perfectly normal thing.

  7. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Oh yay we are discussing flourence. The Palamites really nuked their ability to uphold conciliar infallibility with that one.
    It just qualifies as more like a robber council, which isn't something not unheard of in the 1st millenium.
    >At Ferrara Florence, the Emperor John VIII, together with the Patriarch of Constantinople, as well as representatives from the other Orthodox Churches, a formula of union was drawn up, covering the Filioque, Purgatory, azymes, and the Papal claims; and this was signed by all the Orthodox present at the council except one. Thus, in matters of doctrine, the Orthodox accepted the Papal claims...the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit...and the Roman teaching on Purgatory.
    You do see all the posts covering how only constantinopole really signed it, with Alexandria for a very short time, right? And that the people weren't in agreement with it, along with Pope Eugene seeing it as worthless if St Mark didn't sign it. Further, the council was full of forgeries, also discussed in the same link and which I'm going to post along with the sources.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Catholics would have us believe that the reason the Orthodox legates finally agreed to union, was because the Latins theological arguments were simply superior. The Latin usage of forgeries, and the political pressure surrounding the Council, however, greatly call this into question. Lets begin by looking at the use of forgeries. It was during the debate on the filioque addition to the Creed that the first forgery from the Latin side showed up.1 This time, however, it greatly backfired, as it was immediately recognized for what it was by the Greeks. Cardinal Cesarini brought forward an allegedly ancient codex of the acts of the seventh ecumenical council, but with the filioque added to the creed. When the Greeks investigated the passage they discovered that the “ancient” codex was Latin, causing them to break out in laughter, and Pletho, out of all people, pointed out that: If the testimonies of your copy and your historian were just, or at least had been known long ago to the Church of Rome, then no doubt your Thomas Aquinas and divines preceding would not have made use of so many other arguments to prove the validity of the addition. Instead of this, they might have simply referred to the addition made to the creed by the seventh ecumenical council. But your divines are silent about this.2 Shortly thereafter Andrew of Rhodes attempted to present St. Maximus the Confessors Letter to Marinus. He had, however, deliberately mistranslated the letter, to deny that Maximus rejected the Son as cause of the Spirit. As the Greek interpreter, Nicholas Secundinus, said to Andrew at the Council:

      Father, you did not interpret well the statement in which the saint says that the Romans acknowledge one source of the Spirit. For Saint Maximus does not say this, but rather that they do not make the Son the cause of the Holy Spirit. Then he goes on, “For they acknowledge one cause of the Son and the Spirit, the Father.”3

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        And, as scholar Edward Siecienski notes about this incident:
        As with the authenticity issue, it is likely that this episode only deepened the Byzantines suspicions that the Latins were willfully trying to deceive them through manipulation of the patristic witnesses. The fact that Andrew was a native Greek-speaker and thus could not be acquitted by virtue of his ignorance of the language gave credence to this charge.4 Using his faulty translation, Andrew tried to argue the Letter to Marinus was evidence that Rome had altered the Creed already in the 7th century, apparently unaware that it hadn't been altered by the pope until as late as the 11th century. Not only that, but the papacy had actually opposed adding the filioque to the Creed for at least two centuries, (Pope Leo III and Pope John VIII being the strongest examples).5 Later when the Greeks proposed the Letter to Marinus as a means of reunion, the rest of the Latin contingent not wanting to yield or compromise, were forced to publicly deny Andrews use and interpretation of Maximus letter.6 So far the use of forgeries had not convinced the Greeks of the Latin position, quite the contrary. In fact, during the debates about the popes right to add to the Creed, even some Latins where impressed by St. Mark of Ephesus arguments,7 while Andrew of Rhodes argument that the filioque wasn't an addition but rather a “clarification”, only resulted in further aggravating the Greeks, since it was based on Aristotle’s De generatione et corruptione instead of conciliar decrees or patristic witness.8

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Well then, one might ask, what did finally convince the majority of the Greeks to accept the legitimacy of adding to the creed? The answer to that is the next forgery in line, the “Letter to Athanasius” of the Pseudo-Liberius. This apocryphal letter claimed that the Ecumenical Council of Nicea (325) had prohibited any addition to the Creed. Cardinal Cesarini argued that because the popes after Nicea added to the Creed, they were also justified in more additions. As Roman Catholic Priest and Scholar, Fr. Christiaan Kappes says: Alas, it was this (ps.-Liberius Letter) that proved to be the turning point in the debate with the Greeks… The Greeks knew of no such text and were utterly demoralized by its supposed authenticity. As it turned out, the text was a fake.9 And further:

          Though there was no way to produce critical editions at the time, these conflicts served to entrench Mark in his theological interpretation of the Filioque and ultimately led to a general suspicion of all the Latin patristic authorities unavailable in Greek. These factors at least help us mitigate some moral responsibility for Marks increasingly negative attitude toward the Latins at the council. In fact, the second leading orator (Bessarion) was only won over to the Latin side through the citation of a spurious text attributed to the authority of a fourth-century pope (ps.-Liberius).

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            10 This time the use of a forgery, definitely did convince the Greeks of a Latin position, and thus push them closer towards being pro-union in general. But wait, there’s more… After some opposition from St. Mark of Ephesus they eventually went on to debate the theology behind the filioque instead, and its here that yet another issue with authenticity came up. The Latin representative Cardinal John Montenero and St. Mark initially argued about the logic of the Latin position, the latter claiming it was illogical. At this point in the debate even future pro-unionist Bessarion was in agreement that the Latin position was confused, but before the debate could be concluded Cardinal Cesarini simply ended the session.11 In the next session, although in favor of continuing the previous debate, St. Mark reluctantly agreed (as Montenero wanted) to instead examine the third book of St. Basil’s Adversus Eunomium, and it was here that significant textual variations were discovered.12 St. Mark of Ephesus speculated that Montenero’s codex had been interpolated by a later adherent of the Latin position. On this point:

            …modern patristic scholarship has proved Eugenicus substantially correct as to his reading of the text, but wrong as to the reason. Although both versions were in circulation, even before the schism, the Greek texts appears to have been Basil’s own work, the addition in the Latin text apparently being an excerpt of Eunomius added later.13

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Following the endless argument between Montenero and St. Mark on the authentic version of the text, Roman Catholic scholar and priest Fr. Christiaan Kappes admits that: ...Montenero made a monumental philosophical error. He read Basil to claim that there is a proper difference in the “dignity (dignitas/axioma)” of persons reflected in the order of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Eugenicus pointed out the novelty of this doctrine, naturally expecting Montenero to recant his interpretation…because otherwise [he] would have to embrace a subordinationist absurdity… Montenero, a professional debater, didn’t lose a beat and immediately went to the unthinkable: he began to argue that “Basil” held for an intrinsic distinction of the dignity of the persons in the Trinity…14
            Let that sink in, the Latin debater against St. Mark of Ephesus became an “unabashed subodinationist!”15 This is no insignificant occurrence. The Pope himself was seated in the same room nodding along, and it is Montenero’s heretical theology that the final union decree is intended to support.Montenero produced some quotations from the Fathers which he thought agreed with his view, but St. Mark and the rest of the Greeks remained unconvinced. Things began to change, however, when Montenero stated that the Latin belief affirmed one cause and not two causes, even going so far as to anathematize anyone who asserted two principles or two causes. This apparently made a deep impression on the Greeks, more than the six sessions of debate that preceded it.16

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Emperor, Bessarion of Nicea, Isidore of Kiev and some other Greek prelates thought Montenero’s statement alone was enough to enact union, indicating their inadequate knowledge of Orthodox theology. As St. Gregory Palamas nearly a century earlier pointed out: But you (he says addressing the Latins), why do you say there are two origins for the divinity? For, what does it matter if you do not plainly say this but if it is deduced from what you are saying? Such things are the depths of Satan… as long as they say that He is from the Son or from both, but not only from the Father, there cannot possibly be one origin of the divinity of the one Spirit.17 It is thus not surprising that St. Mark of Ephesus and Anthony of Heraclea were not much impressed by Montenero’s statement.

            Soon thereafter Montenero had a complete presentation using both Scripture and the Fathers (both East and West) to argue for the Latin teaching. Though his reading of the Greek fathers was based in large part on an extremely poor understanding of the Greek word for proceed (εκπορευεσθαι), as Siecienski has shown,18 it still managed to have a significant effect on the Greek delegation. Most notably, Bessarion, Isidore and George Scholarius all came to accept the filioque, becoming the strongest proponents of union within the Greek delegation. But… the majority were nonetheless still anti-union at this stage, claiming they would rather die than Latinize.19

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well then, one might ask, again, what did finally convince the majority of the Greeks to accept yet another Latin position? The answer to that is the pressure of geopolitical circumstances. When theological arguments weren’t enough that’s when we see the pressure of geopolitical circumstances play an active role in the pro-union argument.

            In an attempt to convince the anti-union majority, Bessarion and George Scholarius, besides making elaborate theological treatises, also appealed to their emotions, arguing that unity would help them against the Ottomans.20 Afterwards Pope Eugene IV himself appealed not only to a genuine desire for unity of the churches, but also dangled before them the promise of western military aid against the Turks.21 “Those, like Mark Eugenicus and Anthony of Heraclea, who continued to stand in the way were now labeled by the increasingly unionist delegation as “traitors and Judases” who were preventing both the unity of Christs Church and the salvation of the Great City [ i.e Constantinople].”22 This was no lame appeal, by the time the council took place in 1438, the Ottomans had already attempted to take the city five times, and there were rumors of yet another attempt. Nevertheless, still adhering to St. Maximus the Confessors Letter to Marinus, the majority of Greeks continued to reject the Latin teaching that the Son was cause of the Spirit.23

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            It was at this stage that Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople (now close to death), asked the Greek delegation in a private meeting to support the union: “Why do you not listen to me? Was it not from my cell that you came out? Was it not I who raised you to the rank of bishop? Why then do you betray me? Why did you not second my opinion? Think you, then, that you can judge better than others about dogmas? I know as well as anybody else what the Fathers taught.”24 This was apparently enough, three days later the majority (except for St. Mark of Ephesus, Anthony of Heraclea, Dositheus of Monemvasia, and Sophronius of Anchiaus) fully supported union, and the view that the Son was, in fact, a cause of the Holy Spirit. The other issues, (purgatory, azymes and the papacy) were quickly debated as well, though not generating anywhere near as much debate as the filioque did. Finally, on July 6 1439 the union “Laetentur caeli” was publicly proclaimed. According to Syropoulus (a pro-union Greek who later became anti-union), the Greeks were starved into submission and only signed the union because of psychological, financial, and imperial pressure (while Bessarion and Isidore were bribed). This obviously calls the council further into question (to say the least), but I will admit that Syropoulus account on this point has come under scrutiny by even some Orthodox scholars.25 Either way, the above mentioned forgeries and desire to save Constantinople from the Turks, still shows that not all Greeks were convinced by merely “superior” Latin theological arguments.
            This is where this part starts.

            That substack I linked to literally debunks this claim. I will just copy paste that section and the links after it.
            I want to make it clear that I am not arguing for the 19th century “receptionism” as articulated by Aleksey Khomiakov. Perry Robinson’s article Against Khomiakov clearly shows the problems with it. Rather, as will be shown below, the council lacked Patriarchal ratification. Before I go into how the Council was received in the East, its worth mentioning how it was received by the Greeks already in Italy. Despite the pretense of unity, none of the Greeks took an active part in the Latin rite liturgy that was celebrated in Florence together with the pope, nor did they accept the unleavened Eucharist. 34 Later when they waited in Venice before returning back to Constantinople, the Doge encouraged them to serve the Byzantine liturgy at St. Marks Cathedral, but they were reluctant. When they eventually did serve it though, they used their own altar cloth and vessels, omitted the pope’s name from the diptychs, and sang the Creed without the filioque. 35 “After two years of prolonged debate and the solemn proclamation of ecclesiastical union, absolutely nothing had changed.” 36 When the Greeks finally arrived back in Constantinople (February 1440) almost all of them already regretted their decisions at Florence.37 The union had so little support among the people of Constantinople that it took unionist Patriarch Metrophanes II (1440-43) until Pentecost, (i.e almost four months), before he included the popes name in the dyptichs.38 In 1441 when Isidore of Kiev who represented Russia went to Moscow, he held a service in the Ascension cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. During the service the pope was commemorated and the union decree was read, but within four days he was in prison on the charges of heresy.39

            Much of the Roman Catholic argument hinges on the fact that the representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs accepted the union. The problem with this line of reasoning, however, is that Patriarchs have the right to reject the decision of their legates, and until ratified by the Patriarch they are not considered legally binding.40 Although it seems Patriarch Philotheus of Alexandria initially accepted the decision of his legates and signed on the union, during a council in Jerusalem in 1442, he, along with the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem, rejected Florence as “dirty, anticanonical, and tyrannical.”41 Moreover, the signing of the union decree by the proxies of the Eastern Patriarchs went against the written instructions given to them by the Patriarchs. They had told them not to accept any alteration to the Creed in accordance with the decisions of the previous Ecumenical Councils and church Fathers.42 That the Eastern Patriarchs rejected the Florentine union in 1442 clearly substantiates that the representatives had in fact contradicted their instructions. In sum, the only Patriarchates to accept the council of Florence in the East were Constantinople, and for a very brief time Alexandria. The Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, Georgia, and Serbia, along with the Metropolitans of Moscow and Cyprus, never accepted it. Despite this, (and to his credit) Pope Eugene “did not forget his promises to help the Greeks…”43 In total the army he managed to assemble numbered about 16,000. But, in 1444 it was disastrously defeated by the Ottomans at the Battle of Varna, with King Ladislas III of Poland, and Cardinal Cesarini himself being among the fallen. This defeat effectively sealed the fate of Constantinople.

            Speaking of Constantinople, Emperor Constantine XI (1449-1453) struggled to implement the Florentine union, so much so that in 1451 a frustrated Pope Nicholas V (1447-55) wrote to him, informing him that no western aid would be coming unless they fully accepted the union decree and included the popes name in the diptychs. What Gennadius labored so hard to prevent came to pass on 12 December 1452. In the Great Chruch of St. Sophia there was celebrated a solemn Liturgy in the presence of the Emperor and the senate, priests, and deacons, and the throng of the populace — the whole city of Constantinople, so wrote Isidore later — when the Pope and the Patriarch Gregory were commemorated in the diptychs and prayed for, and the decree of union of the Council of Florence proclaimed. To what degree this acceptance by the Constantinopolitans was genuine cannot be assessed. […] Isidore asserts that till the capture of the city it was generally and consistently observed.44 Five months later Sultan Mehmed II (d. 1481) took the city, and Gennadius II Scholarius (d. 1473), who had become the leader of the anti-unionist after St. Mark of Ephesus death, became the first Patriarch of Constantinople under Ottoman rule. Both Gennadius II and the Metropolitan of Moscow, were convinced that the acceptance of Florence by the Greeks had caused the fall of Constantinople.45 In 1484, with the participation of the four eastern patriarchates, the Florentine union was officially rejected at a Constantinopolitan synod.46

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oops my mistake, there were also other patriarchs who didn't sign it. This is what comes after.
            The fact that the main Orthodox debater, St. Mark of Ephesus (who was then representing Antioch together with Isidore of Kiev), refused to sign the union, is a big deal. When Pope Eugene was told that St. Mark hadn’t signed the final union decree he exclaimed, “Then we have accomplished nothing!”26 Commenting on this, Fr. John Meyendorff states:

            Obviously, Eugenius IV was aware by then of the real situation in the East and knew Mark represented much better the prevailing mentality of the East than did the other members of the Greek delegation.27 But St. Mark wasn’t the only one who didn't sign. That’s right, not all Patriarchs (or their representatives) signed the union. The Patriarch of Serbia had refused to attend or send legates to begin with.28 Before there even was an agreement on the filioque (let alone the other issues), the two envoys representing the Georgian Patriarchate had already left Florence.29 Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople passed away before the other debates and thus did not sign either. Allegedly he left a will and last testament that fully accepted “everything...that the...Church of the elder Rome understands and teaches…”30, and although Catholic historian Joseph Gill accepted its authenticity, as Siecienski notes: …a stronger case can be made against the wills authenticity, since it is never mentioned by Syropoulus or any of the other Greeks (e.g., Pletho, Eugenicus) in their accounts of the council, nor was it utilized by the Latin or Byzantine delegates during the councils final deliberations. Also the letter is dated June 11, despite the fact that the Patriarch clearly died the day before.31

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            According to Orthodox canonical standards, St. Mark of Ephesus and most of the other Greek delegates could not legally affirm union until a new Ecumenical Patriarch was elected.32 Thus, at the time of signing the final Union Decree at least three Patriarchs where not present either in person or via a representative. Moreover, the autocephalous Church of Cyprus (whose prelate, after the Patriarch of Jerusalem, was considered as fifth in seniority among the Orthodox) was another notable absentee, along with the Metropolitan of Stravroupolis, Isaias.33 Therefore even if the Council might have started out as Ecumenical, it certainly did not end that way.

    • 8 months ago
      Nega-Dirk

      >It just qualifies as more like a robber council, which isn't something not unheard of in the 1st millenium.
      This is what is referred to as, cope.
      You are only saying it’s a “robber council” because you disagree with the outcome.
      It has ecumenical attendance, it was a council, it has both papal and imperial authority.
      All attendees bar 1 signed.
      BOOM! ecumenical council.
      This is an example of Palamites selecting councils by their faith not informing their faith by the councils.
      Classic.

      >You do see all the posts covering how only constantinopole really signed it, with Alexandria for a very short time, right?
      Cope.
      Additionally those weren’t my words, they were a quote from Palamite Bishop Timothy Ware's The Orthodox Church, pp. 70-71.
      >And that the people weren't in agreement with it,
      Theology isn’t a democracy sorry.
      >along with Pope Eugene seeing it as worthless if the Arch-Heretic Mark didn't sign it.
      Irrelevant. The palamite position is that 1 man’s voice has no right to speak against an ecumenical council. Josiah Trenhem accidentally made just that argument when saying Martin Luther “made himself pope” when he disagreed with an ecumenical council.
      >Further, the council was full of forgeries
      Doesn’t invalidate a council, otherwise Nicea II was invalid and the Palamite Church has errored.
      Which do you choose?

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >This is an example of Palamites selecting councils by their faith not informing their faith by the councils.
        >Classic.
        But the photian council that reinstated St Photius was recognised by the popes for 2 centuries before they changed their minds.
        >Irrelevant. The palamite position is that 1 man’s voice has no right to speak against an ecumenical council. Josiah Trenhem accidentally made just that argument when saying Martin Luther “made himself pope” when he disagreed with an ecumenical council.
        The argument is saying one man isn't superior in doctrinal decisions in the church. St Mark Of Ephesus wasn't the only one who didn't agree with it.
        >Doesn’t invalidate a council, otherwise Nicea II was invalid and the Palamite Church has errored.
        I literally only ever heard of accusations of forgeries now and what I can find now just says that ot's protestants saying this, along with catholics talking about how those documents weren't central to it. Same with orthodox.
        https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2019/08/28/highlights-from-the-minutes-of-nicea-ii/
        >In passing one of the Bishops cites an apocryphal “council of Antioch” which alleged in its 8th canon that images of God and the saints be painted. Scholars find the canons (listed here) in the Apostolic Constitutions, a late fourth century source. It should be noted that all of these “constitutions” are earlier source material from earlier in the 4th all the way to the 1st century (in the case of the Didache.) For what it is worth, it shows that the teaching on icons already was canonical in some parts of the Church during the fourth century.
        https://www.britannica.com/topic/Apostolic-Constitutions
        This isn't anything like Florence since the whole thing hinged on the forgeries and blackmail.

        • 8 months ago
          Nega-Dirk

          >But the photian council that……
          Irrelevant, stop shadowboxing and stay on topic.
          It has ecumenical attendance, it was a council, it has both papal and imperial authority.
          All attendees bar 1 signed.
          BOOM! ecumenical council.

          >The argument is saying one man isn't superior in doctrinal decisions in the church. The Arch-heretic Mark Of Ephesus wasn't the only one who didn't agree with it.
          Again irrelevant, people can disagree all they want. Does ONE man refusing to sign the decrees of a council invalidate that council, Yes or No
          If yes then you are some form of Protestant (which is okay, no judgment).
          If no then Marks temper tantrum is irrelevant and the councils decree stands.

          >I literally only ever heard of accusations of forgeries now
          Well you are behind the 8ball. Most of what John of Damascus used as his basis for his arguments (which in turn were the BASIS, as you would say “the whole thing hinged on” for the argument of the iconophiles at Nicea II) were built on forgeries.
          Here is a video if we are resorting to walls of text.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Irrelevant, stop shadowboxing and stay on topic.
            >It has ecumenical attendance, it was a council, it has both papal and imperial authority.
            >All attendees bar 1 signed.
            >BOOM! ecumenical council.
            In the early church the council had to be received. The robber council of ephesus wasn't received since they realised that the ones presiding over it just forced their ideas and didn't bother to read St Leo's tomb.
            Florence was no longer recognised in a few decades, whereas the council of 879/880 was recognised for 2 decades. There's a difference.
            >Again irrelevant, people can disagree all they want.
            So, he wasn't the only one, therefore your argument about the importance of one man was basically useless. Also, if you're catholic and the pope is supposed to be supreme on decisions than St Mark of Ephesus not signing it did matter by your own standards.
            Also, besides St John Of damascus there were multiple other sources talking about icon. Also, why are you using a Protestant video that is against icon veneration and which has been countered by orthodox?
            https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2023/07/31/review-of-the-failure-of-eastern-orthodoxy/

            ?feature=shared
            https://www.youtube.com/live/iIIS6mkk9_o?feature=shared
            The catholic church recognises the council, Pope Adrian rebutted the libri carolini and catholics defend Nicea 2.
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Nicaea
            >A copy of the Libri was sent to Pope Hadrian, who responded with a refutation of the Frankish arguments.
            You said you are catholic

            [...]

            so you doing this means you are a hypocrite to say this.

          • 8 months ago
            Nega-Dirk

            Nice digits
            >In the early church the council had to be received.
            Linguistic cope.
            It was received that’s why everyone but an arch-heretic signed it.
            >Florence was no longer recognised in a few decades
            And the Council of Nicea was overturned 10yrs later. It didn’t make Nicea wrong then and doesn’t make Flourence wrong now. Your only solution is to
            1) abandoned conciliar infallibility
            Or 2) condemn all councils with any forged document and then Nicea II goes with it.
            Until then you aren’t making any real arguments you just drawing comparisons to stuff you really don’t want to in a desperate attempt to grasp at straw.

            >So, he wasn't the only one, therefore your argument about the importance of one man was basically useless.
            Everyone there signed but him.
            NEXT!

            >besides St John Of damascus there were multiple other sources talking about icon.
            Irrelevant again stop shadowboxing and address the point.
            His sauces for 1st century icons were forgeries. Thus by your autistic standard since John of Damascus works were central to Nicea II and his evidence was forgery that means the forgeries were central to the council and thus the council was invalid.

            >Also, why are you using a Protestant video that is against icon veneration
            I’ll use whatever I want. A quality video is a quality video regardless of the denomination.
            >and which has been countered by orthodox?
            I’ll need to watch those but unless they somehow dig up 1st century copies of documents John used then your still in the same position.
            You set yourself a standard you can’t meet and in doing so shot yourself in the foot. Tbh that most of Palamite history.

            >so you doing this means you are a hypocrite to say this.
            To hold you to your own standards makes me a hypocrite?
            Lmao. I’ll await your next attempt at cope.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >was received that’s why everyone but an arch-heretic signed it.
            Then why did the pope say it was useless? Further, as I said, only constantinopole signed it long term.
            >To hold you to your own standards makes me a hypocrite?
            No, but if you say you are catholic and post a video disparaging icons, you kinda have a nice day in the foot since every single type of catholic uses them or statues in worship or veneration on the same logic.

          • 8 months ago
            Nega-Dirk

            >Then why did the pope say it was useless?
            Don’t know, don’t care, literally irrelevant.
            >Further, as I said, only constantinopole signed it long term.
            Ooooof big mistake admit that last part with “long-term”.
            A bishop should die before he signs a creed that he thinks is heretical.
            NEXT!

            >noooooooo but some biased people claim the heckin pope did mean stuff
            >This is a really pathetic.
            The pope literally split the church using forgeries and now they admit that the standard for the 1st century wasn't the Vatican 1 papacy.
            >It was also true that, under pressure from the Ottomans and needing western military assistance, the emperor and the patriarch recognized that the pope was in a position to generate western help in favour of Constantinople… The union was signed by the Greeks under the pressure of circumstances, and was subsequently not received by the Greek ChurchAlexandria Document 1.17 and 1.19.
            http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/document-d-alexandrie---synodalite-et-primaute-au-deuxieme-mille.html
            Meanwhile, you have been calling St Mark of ephesus a heretic and went the mile to change the quotations like that. To me, you are biased.
            >Yes because you haven’t addressed it. You cant oppose a council on grounds it had forged documents and politics in the background when that occurred at most councils
            Again, the council didn't depend squarely on them.
            And remember, Constantinopole was in communion with Rome, so they only fell when they said the pope's name in the dyptichs, so that happened when they agreed to the filioque. The whole "you got invaded" narrative when it happened after agreeing with a union and when the pope's military aid did nothing.

            >The pope literally split the church using forgeries
            You have done that yourself.jpeg
            >The union was signed by the Greeks under the pressure of circumstances, and……
            Don’t sign a creed you don’t agree with.
            NEXT!

            >you have been calling St Mark of ephesus a heretic and went the mile to change the quotations like that. To me, you are biased.
            Oh absolutely I’m biased.
            And so are you.
            Only difference is I’m looking at the facts.
            Your coping by saying “look it was a prank dude, I was just joshing when I signed it, jeez goyim kalm down ya aggregating my asthma”

            >Again, the council didn't depend squarely on them.
            Cope, his arguments where the MAIN case of the iconophiles and are still held up as the master class in discussion on icons.

            >And remember, Constantinopole was in communion with Rome
            >The whole "you got invaded" narrative when it happened after agreeing with a union and when the pope's military aid did nothing.
            Yeah and God punished the Palamite population for their autism.
            Again Christianity isn’t a democracy so when the Greekoid public rejected the light of Christianity that their leadership had finally embraced God sent them the darkness of Islam.

            St John of Damascus wasn't wrong in his arguments on icons, plus other saints testify on it.
            >St. Basil the Great ca. 330-379
            >According to the blameless faith of the Christians which we have obtained from God, I confess and agree that I believe in one God the Father Almighty; God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost; I adore and worship one God, the Three. I confess to the œconomy of the Son in the flesh, and that the holy Mary, who gave birth to Him according to the flesh, was Mother of God. I acknowledge also the holy apostles, prophets, and martyrs; and I invoke them to supplication to God, that through them, that is, through their mediation, the merciful God may be propitious to me, and that a ransom may be made and given me for my sins. Wherefore also I honour and kiss the features of their images, inasmuch as they have been handed down from the holy apostles, and are not forbidden, but are in all our churches. (Letter 360)
            Also, Constantine was more interested in making the two factions at nicea to get along, so I doubt they would have well learned faith. Also, wasn't his wife execute because ahe lied in regards to constantine's son?

            >St John of Damascus wasn't wrong in his arguments on icons, plus other saints…
            *instantly ignored* Literally not the topic in discussion. The discussion is regarding the forged documents used to support said argument. He could say that oranges are fruit and still have used forged documents.
            You brainlet CHOSE to die on the hill of >“but muh HECKIN forged documents makes Florence legitimate”.
            I didn’t make you choose that hill, you did that yourself.jpeg.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            If the pope didn't see it as valid, then it wasn't valid so it matters. Nicea 2 established what a robber council is.
            https://ubipetrusibiecclesia.com/2020/07/03/what-makes-a-council-ecumenical/#nicaea2
            >And how can a council be ‘great and ecumenical’ when it received neither recognition nor assent from the primates of the other churches, but they consigned it to anathema? It did not enjoy the cooperation of the then pope of Rome or his priests, neither by means of his representatives or an encyclical letter, as is the rule for councils; nor did it win the assent of the patriarchs of the east, of Alexandria, Antioch, and the holy city, or of their priests and bishops.
            This is also developed by another orthodox.
            https://ancientinsights.wordpress.com/2022/01/20/conciliar-infallibility-in-the-orthodox-church/
            Not too long after this, the precise conditions of conciliar infallibility (not its fact) would come up again because of the robber Council of Florence, which “dogmatically” taught the heresies of papal indefectibility, and the Filioque. Like the iconoclast Council of Hieria, Florence claimed to be ecumenical and thus infallibly binding. Indeed to this day, there are some Roman Catholics who try to argue this point against Holy Orthodoxy. However, as St. Gennadius Scholarius wrote in his Apologia Against the Union, Florence was not approved by the Apostolic See of Alexandria (represented by St. Mark of Ephesus), which ipso facto excludes it from II Nicaea’s definition of an infallible Council; and the representatives of the other Sees who did approve of Florence, were not only directly disobeying their Patriarchs (thus being unable to speak on their behalf), but they were also renounced by them upon return (p. 37-38). As always, conciliar infallibility is never brought into question, but only its conditions are commented on.

          • 8 months ago
            Nega-Dirk

            >If the pope didn't see it as valid, then it wasn't valid so it matters.
            Cope, stop trying to derail the conversation.
            >Not too long after this, the precise conditions of conciliar infallibility (not its fact) would come up again because of the robber Council of Florence, which
            Yep this is purely the result of your autistic presupposition.
            Your just assuming that definition applies to Florence because you presuppose that it’s not an ecumenical council. It’s circular reason that will end up shooting yourself in the foot in just a few sentences.
            The truth is You stupidly chose to die on the hill of “forged documents invalidate a council” and after I proved that it was a moronic hill to die on and that you would have to either affirm Florence or Deny Nicea II (resulting in your instant excommunication either way).
            I notice that you dropped all mention forged documents all of a sudden and have tried switching to this new line of moronation.
            Pathetic.

            >Like the iconoclast Council of Hieria, Florence claimed to be ecumenical
            Which the Palamites accepted it as. Again they all (but 1) signed it.
            >and thus infallibly binding.
            Yep, cause by your standards it was.

            >Florence was not approved by the Apostolic See of Alexandria (represented by St. Mark of Ephesus
            >which ipso facto excludes it from II Nicaea’s definition of an infallible Council
            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
            AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
            AHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHA
            OMG that’s fricking hysterical.
            Imagine saying that to Chalcedon. “Woops sorry guys Chalcedon was not approved by the Apostolic See of Alexandria (represented by St. Dioscorus)
            HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
            What is it with Palamites and constantly shooting themselves in the foot?
            And with that it’s pretty obvious you have lost the debate.
            Btw you just accidentally excommunicated yourself by denying Chalcedon.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Which the Palamites accepted it as. Again they all (but 1) signed it.
            I'm a different anon, but the the very definition of a ecumenical council is that it be universally recognized and accepted by the Church, as the other anon pointed out. the Council of Florence was not universally accepted by the Orthodox bishops. The Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, Georgia, and Serbia, along with the Metropolitans of Moscow and Cyprus, never accepted it. This makes your claim that if matched the criteria of being ecumenical just false.
            >Imagine saying that to Chalcedon. “Woops sorry guys Chalcedon was not approved by the Apostolic See of Alexandria (represented by St. Dioscorus)
            I find it strange you call him a saint despite him only be venerated by Non-Chalcedonian churches. That aside, Dioscorus was deposed in Chalcedon so his approval wouldn't even matter in regards to whether Chalcedon was universally accepted by the Church.

          • 8 months ago
            Nega-Dirk

            >I'm a different anon, but the the very definition of a ecumenical council is that it be universally recognized and accepted by the Church
            >This makes your claim that if matched the criteria of being ecumenical just false.
            Then there is no such thing as an ecumenically council.
            The Coptic Bishops didn’t accept Chalcedon, woops the entire consillar structure just collapse. Congratz.

            >Dioscorus was deposed in Chalcedon so his approval wouldn't even matter
            No because he would need to be deposed by an ecumenical council, and as he (and foolishly you) argued, since it wasn’t universally accepted it wasn’t ecumenical, ergo not binding, ergo he wasn’t disposed by an ecumenical council.
            Again this is what I keep saying about your cult and shooting yourselves in the foot, why do you keep doing it?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Coptic Bishops didn’t accept Chalcedon, woops the entire consillar structure just collapse. Congratz.
            That's not how that works. The bishops who would schism from the church were present at Chalcedon. They were present for the decision of Chalcedon and rejected it due to their preference to miaphysitism. Universal recognition and acceptance means that the entirety of the Church is assembled (Chalcedon was) and that it's confession be entirely accepted by the universal (CATHOLIC) Church, due to the very nature of a council's decision being the will of God. Thus, to follow Chalcedon was to follow the very will of God, and those who held to the will of God were in the Catholic Church. This means Chalcedon achieved both universal recognition and acceptance.

            The issue with setting the standard of an ecumenical council as being ecumenical because the Pope accepted them, would be due to the issue of Apostolic authority of Apostolic Sees not being centered around communion with Rome. St John, for example, established his See in Ephesus despite the area originally being evangelized by St Paul and was traditionally overseen by Rome's jurisdiction. Likewise, the recognition of the Pope as being Pope required the universal recognition and acceptance by not only the bishops under Rome's jurisdiction, but also the other Church Patriarchs (see St Pope Cornelius' letter and Council of Antioch 269AD). Thus, this standard that the Roman See has the final say in any ecclesial jurisdiction is just inconsistent with Church history. Relating this back to Dioscorus, he was not universally recognized or accepted as Patriarch of Alexandria by either the bishops under Alexandria's jurisdiction, or the other Patriarchs of the Church. Thus, his deposing was proper and as such his approval of the council had no impact on whether it was to be considered ecumenical.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yep this is purely the result of your autistic presupposition.
            >Your just assuming that definition applies to Florence because you presuppose that it’s not an ecumenical council.
            Nope it's on the basis that multiple sees left the council, never signed it and not even the constantinopole signature was legitimate to the Pope. Those walls of text literally talk about this, but you seem to have ignored them completely.
            >Which the Palamites accepted it as. Again they all (but 1) signed it.
            Nope, multiple sees didn't sign it, Alexandria signed it for a short period of time but rejected it.
            Also, Discorius, the guy you proclaim as saint, literally ignored Leo's delegates and the tomb, which led to chalcedon happening. So, if you're catholic, you just insultele a pope and saint.

            >Your bias is literally appearing in…….
            Boring, I don’t deny I’m biased just like you are.
            Only difference is I can admit my bias while you are clearly holding to a double standard (see [...])
            NEXT!

            >So?
            So you said any councils that had forged documents were invalid.
            So either you lied (mortal sin) and you affirm Florence, meaning instant excommunication.
            Or you are telling the truth and deny Nicea II, again instant excommunicated.
            Have fun :))

            >Further, St John of Damascus used pseudo-dyonisius
            Yep 6th February forged documents pretending to be from the 1st dentistry.
            You argued here ([...]) that use of forged documents invalidates a council.
            Again WERE YOU LYING?

            >How?
            By setting an autistic standard you can’t meet.
            Such as forged documents invalidating a council, see up a few lines.

            This ultimately it the problem with Palamites is that they build their theology on false presuppositions that lead them to choose to die on really moronic hill La and take stances that end up shootings themselves in the foot.
            You have devolved into “so?” as though you haven’t already completely collapsed your own worldview. Now it could be built on denial, (your denomination especially the online variant of it is extremely cultish) so you might be unable to see your own contradictions, I dunno.
            But I’ve debated enough Palamites to know we can (and probably will be at this till the thread runs out). Where I ask for a simple answer to a position YOU PLACED YOURSELF IN and you will dance around the topic refusing to actually engage with it.
            Normally I would LOVE that, but I gtg to bed. If the threads still up tomorrow I’ll stop in to laugh at your cope some more.
            If it’s not I hope one day you will convert to Christianity.

            >So you said any councils that had forged documents were invalid.
            Nope. Never said I pointed out how forgeries were used. The problem is the fact that they claimed the filioque was always there when their documents were laughable forgeries. UNLIKE icons, which are proven by people like St Basil the Great, who lived way before pseudo-dyonisus was written, along with there being other sources.

            >I'm a different anon, but the the very definition of a ecumenical council is that it be universally recognized and accepted by the Church
            >This makes your claim that if matched the criteria of being ecumenical just false.
            Then there is no such thing as an ecumenically council.
            The Coptic Bishops didn’t accept Chalcedon, woops the entire consillar structure just collapse. Congratz.

            >Dioscorus was deposed in Chalcedon so his approval wouldn't even matter
            No because he would need to be deposed by an ecumenical council, and as he (and foolishly you) argued, since it wasn’t universally accepted it wasn’t ecumenical, ergo not binding, ergo he wasn’t disposed by an ecumenical council.
            Again this is what I keep saying about your cult and shooting yourselves in the foot, why do you keep doing it?

            >Then there is no such thing as an ecumenically council.
            >The Coptic Bishops didn’t accept Chalcedon, woops the entire consillar structure just collapse. Congratz
            Nope, there is. This is how schisms happen, people don't recognise the council or another robber, so the parties anathemise/fully sever one another, with each claiming they are the truth. In the case of Florence, which was a union council, it would have to be accepted by everyone, otherwise this just means another schism with jurisdiction like with the assyrians and orientals or like with anglicans splitting with episcopelians.
            Your logic is absolutist in your approach.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Oh absolutely I’m biased.
            >And so are you.
            >Only difference is I’m looking at the facts.
            Your coping by saying “look it was a prank dude, I was just joshing when I signed it, jeez goyim kalm down ya aggregating my asthma”
            Your bias is literally appearing in every thread that mentions orthodoxy and complaining about them.
            >Cope, his arguments where the MAIN case of the iconophiles and are still held up as the master class in discussion on icons.
            So? You're catholic, so you follow the council, Pope Adrian rebutted the libri carolini and you need to follow the council. His ideas were just formulating why icons are okay.
            Further, St John of Damascus used pseudo-dyonisius, which were written in the 5th-6th century whereas the quote from St Basil is from the 4th.
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Dionysius_the_Areopagite
            It's also notable that the name of St Dionysius was likely used a rhetotical device known as declamatio in explaining the tradition. Further, we have St Augustine also use such texts.
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrosiaster
            >You have done that yourself.jpeg
            How? Their tradition of forgeries dates back to before the byzantine papacy with Pope Symmachus and his symmachean forgeries during the ostrogoth period.

          • 8 months ago
            Nega-Dirk

            >Your bias is literally appearing in…….
            Boring, I don’t deny I’m biased just like you are.
            Only difference is I can admit my bias while you are clearly holding to a double standard (see

            >Then why did the pope say it was useless?
            Don’t know, don’t care, literally irrelevant.
            >Further, as I said, only constantinopole signed it long term.
            Ooooof big mistake admit that last part with “long-term”.
            A bishop should die before he signs a creed that he thinks is heretical.
            NEXT!

            [...]
            >The pope literally split the church using forgeries
            You have done that yourself.jpeg
            >The union was signed by the Greeks under the pressure of circumstances, and……
            Don’t sign a creed you don’t agree with.
            NEXT!

            >you have been calling St Mark of ephesus a heretic and went the mile to change the quotations like that. To me, you are biased.
            Oh absolutely I’m biased.
            And so are you.
            Only difference is I’m looking at the facts.
            Your coping by saying “look it was a prank dude, I was just joshing when I signed it, jeez goyim kalm down ya aggregating my asthma”

            >Again, the council didn't depend squarely on them.
            Cope, his arguments where the MAIN case of the iconophiles and are still held up as the master class in discussion on icons.

            >And remember, Constantinopole was in communion with Rome
            >The whole "you got invaded" narrative when it happened after agreeing with a union and when the pope's military aid did nothing.
            Yeah and God punished the Palamite population for their autism.
            Again Christianity isn’t a democracy so when the Greekoid public rejected the light of Christianity that their leadership had finally embraced God sent them the darkness of Islam.

            [...]
            >St John of Damascus wasn't wrong in his arguments on icons, plus other saints…
            *instantly ignored* Literally not the topic in discussion. The discussion is regarding the forged documents used to support said argument. He could say that oranges are fruit and still have used forged documents.
            You brainlet CHOSE to die on the hill of >“but muh HECKIN forged documents makes Florence legitimate”.
            I didn’t make you choose that hill, you did that yourself.jpeg.

            )
            NEXT!

            >So?
            So you said any councils that had forged documents were invalid.
            So either you lied (mortal sin) and you affirm Florence, meaning instant excommunication.
            Or you are telling the truth and deny Nicea II, again instant excommunicated.
            Have fun :))

            >Further, St John of Damascus used pseudo-dyonisius
            Yep 6th February forged documents pretending to be from the 1st dentistry.
            You argued here (

            Catholics would have us believe that the reason the Orthodox legates finally agreed to union, was because the Latins theological arguments were simply superior. The Latin usage of forgeries, and the political pressure surrounding the Council, however, greatly call this into question. Lets begin by looking at the use of forgeries. It was during the debate on the filioque addition to the Creed that the first forgery from the Latin side showed up.1 This time, however, it greatly backfired, as it was immediately recognized for what it was by the Greeks. Cardinal Cesarini brought forward an allegedly ancient codex of the acts of the seventh ecumenical council, but with the filioque added to the creed. When the Greeks investigated the passage they discovered that the “ancient” codex was Latin, causing them to break out in laughter, and Pletho, out of all people, pointed out that: If the testimonies of your copy and your historian were just, or at least had been known long ago to the Church of Rome, then no doubt your Thomas Aquinas and divines preceding would not have made use of so many other arguments to prove the validity of the addition. Instead of this, they might have simply referred to the addition made to the creed by the seventh ecumenical council. But your divines are silent about this.2 Shortly thereafter Andrew of Rhodes attempted to present St. Maximus the Confessors Letter to Marinus. He had, however, deliberately mistranslated the letter, to deny that Maximus rejected the Son as cause of the Spirit. As the Greek interpreter, Nicholas Secundinus, said to Andrew at the Council:

            Father, you did not interpret well the statement in which the saint says that the Romans acknowledge one source of the Spirit. For Saint Maximus does not say this, but rather that they do not make the Son the cause of the Holy Spirit. Then he goes on, “For they acknowledge one cause of the Son and the Spirit, the Father.”3

            ) that use of forged documents invalidates a council.
            Again WERE YOU LYING?

            >How?
            By setting an autistic standard you can’t meet.
            Such as forged documents invalidating a council, see up a few lines.

            This ultimately it the problem with Palamites is that they build their theology on false presuppositions that lead them to choose to die on really moronic hill La and take stances that end up shootings themselves in the foot.
            You have devolved into “so?” as though you haven’t already completely collapsed your own worldview. Now it could be built on denial, (your denomination especially the online variant of it is extremely cultish) so you might be unable to see your own contradictions, I dunno.
            But I’ve debated enough Palamites to know we can (and probably will be at this till the thread runs out). Where I ask for a simple answer to a position YOU PLACED YOURSELF IN and you will dance around the topic refusing to actually engage with it.
            Normally I would LOVE that, but I gtg to bed. If the threads still up tomorrow I’ll stop in to laugh at your cope some more.
            If it’s not I hope one day you will convert to Christianity.

          • 8 months ago
            Nega-Dirk

            Okay, I “read” through this https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2023/07/31/review-of-the-failure-of-eastern-orthodoxy/
            I skipped a lot because the section headings showed it wasn’t relevant to the points).
            It doesn’t address the topic we are discussing. It doesn’t dispute the fact that
            John of Damascus’ citations were almost entirely forgeries (again John’s arguments for Icons were the CORE of the iconophiles argument).
            So that was a little disappoint ngl.
            Additonally there actually some errors in the document.
            The author in his sauces on prayers to the saints lists
            7. Origen, On Prayer; Chap 6, 7, 10 (Origen was part of the proto-Orthodox Church, 3rd century)
            Which is heavily disputed because people have used the same work against prayers to the saints.
            And 11. Eusebius of Caesarea: “For we are accustomed to glorify their sepulchres, there to offer prayers and vows, and to venerate their blessed souls; and we declare that we are right in doing these things.” (proto-Orthodox, 4th century; quoted in Percival, Invocation of the Saints, p. 163; Praparatio Evang., lib. xiii. cap. ii (11). [Migne, Pair. Grac, tom, xxi, col. 1095.])
            Eusebius of Caesarea was an Iconocalst, so not a good example to use.
            In a letter of Constantia (Emperor Constantine's Sister) in response to a request for an image of Christ (this is inferred, as the original letter is not preserved, only Eusebius' reponse).
            >"Can it be that you have forgotten that passage in which God lays down the law that no likeness should be made either of what is in heaven or what is in the earth beneath? Have you ever heard anything of the kind either yourself in church or from another person? Are not such things banished and excluded from churches all over the world, and is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone?"
            As cited in Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453, 17.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            St John of Damascus wasn't wrong in his arguments on icons, plus other saints testify on it.
            >St. Basil the Great ca. 330-379
            >According to the blameless faith of the Christians which we have obtained from God, I confess and agree that I believe in one God the Father Almighty; God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost; I adore and worship one God, the Three. I confess to the œconomy of the Son in the flesh, and that the holy Mary, who gave birth to Him according to the flesh, was Mother of God. I acknowledge also the holy apostles, prophets, and martyrs; and I invoke them to supplication to God, that through them, that is, through their mediation, the merciful God may be propitious to me, and that a ransom may be made and given me for my sins. Wherefore also I honour and kiss the features of their images, inasmuch as they have been handed down from the holy apostles, and are not forbidden, but are in all our churches. (Letter 360)
            Also, Constantine was more interested in making the two factions at nicea to get along, so I doubt they would have well learned faith. Also, wasn't his wife execute because ahe lied in regards to constantine's son?

  8. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Forgeries have been present and accepted at numerous councils, see Nicea II. If that makes the council invalid I call on you to now condem Nicea II.
    >If you won’t your a hypocrite and cannot be taken seriously.
    The other councils didn't depend on those forgeries. They mentioned them, but Nicea 2 relied mostly on Pope Adrian's letters, with both orthodox and catholics responding to the accusations.
    Also, you seem to trivialise the fact that the pope was willing to secure union through FALSIFIED MEANS, which is quite different from Empress Irene asking for the restoration of icons, with both west and east overturning the councils against icons.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Nicaea
    >The veneration of icons had been banned by Byzantine Emperor Constantine V and supported by his Council of Hieria (754 AD), which had described itself as the seventh ecumenical council.[2] The Council of Hieria was overturned by the Second Council of Nicaea only 33 years later, and has also been rejected by Catholic and Orthodox churches, since none of the five major patriarchs were represented.

    • 8 months ago
      Nega-Dirk

      >The other councils didn't depend on those forgeries
      Yet more Palamite selectively choosing councils based on what they like.
      You are just going to excuse forgeries in other councils as “nOt CeNtRAL” or “NoT dEPeNDaNT” entirely on the basis on wether you agree with the council or not.
      Your consilliar infallibility is a meme.

      >Also, you seem to trivialise the fact that the pope was willing to secure union through FALSIFIED MEANS, which is quite different from “Empress” Irene enforcing MANDATORYA icom worships through FALSIFIED MEANS
      Pathetic. If Palamites didn’t have double standards they would have no standards at all.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Empress Irene presented no document and only called for it. I don't she attended it. Again, you ignore the fact that both west and east rescinded the council, so her calling for it was just the push for something they asked.
        The pope attended and supported the use of these writings, used military blackmail and starved the delegates.
        Your argument for Florence is just repeating the same points.

        • 8 months ago
          Nega-Dirk

          You
          Aren’t
          Addressing
          The
          Point
          >noooooooo but some biased people claim the heckin pope did mean stuff
          This is a really pathetic.
          >Your argument for Florence is just repeating the same points.
          Yes because you haven’t addressed it. You cant oppose a council on grounds it had forged documents and politics in the background when that occurred at most councils.
          What’s good for the geese is good for the gander.

          And the Palamites accepted it, it literally was a textbook ecumenical council, but a bunch of monks, priests, and laity in Constantinople went "BOOOO! We would rather be under the Turkish turban than the Roman tiara!!" and started to riot. Well, God granted them that wish. And on Pentecost 1453, their crown israeliteel Constantinople gets absolutely WRECKED by Muslims. (Getting wrecked on Pentecost is a really bad sign BTW) And, ever since, the eastern church has been largely reduced to ethno-centric, state-run churches, constantly under the thumb of and threatened by Muslims and communists.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >noooooooo but some biased people claim the heckin pope did mean stuff
            >This is a really pathetic.
            The pope literally split the church using forgeries and now they admit that the standard for the 1st century wasn't the Vatican 1 papacy.
            >It was also true that, under pressure from the Ottomans and needing western military assistance, the emperor and the patriarch recognized that the pope was in a position to generate western help in favour of Constantinople… The union was signed by the Greeks under the pressure of circumstances, and was subsequently not received by the Greek ChurchAlexandria Document 1.17 and 1.19.
            http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/document-d-alexandrie---synodalite-et-primaute-au-deuxieme-mille.html
            Meanwhile, you have been calling St Mark of ephesus a heretic and went the mile to change the quotations like that. To me, you are biased.
            >Yes because you haven’t addressed it. You cant oppose a council on grounds it had forged documents and politics in the background when that occurred at most councils
            Again, the council didn't depend squarely on them.
            And remember, Constantinopole was in communion with Rome, so they only fell when they said the pope's name in the dyptichs, so that happened when they agreed to the filioque. The whole "you got invaded" narrative when it happened after agreeing with a union and when the pope's military aid did nothing.

  9. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can anyone tell me how 1 Peter 1:10 doesnt confirm the filioque?

  10. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    There are like 30,000 protestant sects OP. Which one of the 30,000 are you talking about?

  11. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    not really, protestants don't tend to reply
    >uuhhhhh it's a mystery durr
    to every question about anything

  12. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    One big difference is that Orthodox prefer to play alone while Protestants prefer to pay together

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *