Isn't Florence an Ecumenical Council? The Pentarchy thought so.

[Xavier]

Why isn't the Council of Florence considered by Orthodox Christians to be an Ecumenical Council? Even if the claim is (1) the Pentarchy must approve, and (2) the Byzantine Emperor must be present, both conditions were clearly fulfilled, beside the Papal approval. Therefore, Florence is an Ecumenical Council. Thoughts?

" In early April 1438, the Byzantine contingent, over 700 strong, arrived at Ferrara. On 9 April 1438, the first solemn session at Ferrara began, with the Eastern Roman Emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople and representatives of the Patriarchal Sees of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem in attendance and Pope Eugene IV presiding."

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence

 

[Samn!]

The issues of representation of the Melkite Patriarchates at Florence is complicated, because they were appointed by the emperor and appear to have been incommunicado from (and had no prior history with) the sees they were purportedly representing. But, even if we grant your premise, the fact that Mark of Ephesus was named as Antioch's representative means that the Pentarchy as a whole did not approve of the council.

 

[TheTrisagion]

I think you left out the most important determining factor. For an Ecumenical Council to be valid from the perspective of the Orthodox Church, the Church must accept, as a whole, the decision. The Orthodox Church clearly did not accept the decision even if a few representatives did. How "whole church" is defined can sometimes be a bit vague, (ie Fourth Ecumenical Council), but the Council of Florence was definitely not accepted by the "whole church" regardless of how you define it.

 

[Asteriktos]

Whether it's Papal supremacy/infallibility, apostolic succession, or Church Councils, Catholic apologists always seem to forget the special ingredient necessary for something to be considered orthodox: orthodoxy.

 

[PorphyriosK]

Why isn't the Council of Florence considered by Orthodox Christians to be an Ecumenical Council? Even if the claim is (1) the Pentarchy must approve, and (2) the Byzantine Emperor must be present, both conditions were clearly fulfilled, beside the Papal approval. Therefore, Florence is an Ecumenical Council. Thoughts?

" In early April 1438, the Byzantine contingent, over 700 strong, arrived at Ferrara. On 9 April 1438, the first solemn session at Ferrara began, with the Eastern Roman Emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople and representatives of the Patriarchal Sees of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem in attendance and Pope Eugene IV presiding."

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence

We could easily pose a similar question:

Why isn't the Council of *Constantinople 879-880* considered by *Roman Catholics* to be an Ecumenical Council? Even if the claim is (1) the Pentarchy must approve, and (2) the Byzantine Emperor must be present, both conditions were clearly fulfilled, beside the Papal approval. Therefore, *Constantinople 879-880* is an Ecumenical Council. Thoughts?

 

[Shanghaiski]

It was a robber council, in that it advocated heresy.

 

[Apotheoun]

The Council of Florence is not ecumenical because it promoted error on various issues. The end.

 

[Vanhyo]

Actually you will find out that all robber councils have the following in common: political goal and abuse.

 

[Xavier]

The Council of Florence is not ecumenical because it promoted error on various issues. The end.

That's pure private judgment, though. Not the Pentarchy's judgment. Someone who rejected Chalcedon's Ecumenicity could as well say "The Council of Chalcedon is not Ecumenical because it promoted error on various issues. The end". Chalcedon is Ecumenical because the Pope approved. Or, if you wish, because the Pentarchy approved. You have to be consistent in the external requirements needed for an Ecumenical Council.

I will post excerpts from the Byzantine Emperor at the Council of Florence later on. I believe he said something like "I view this current Ecumenical Council to be no less holy than the previous ones". The participants at the Council of Florence believed it to be an Ecumenical Council.

I have quotes from Joseph Gill's "The Council of Florence".

Vanhyo, the Pentarchy did not approve of Ephesus II, therefore it was a Robber Council. Notably, for e.g. Pope St. Leo the Great did not approve.

Give another example of a Robber Council which was approved by Patriarchs and Representatives of all Five Sees?

 

[PorphyriosK]

That's pure private judgment, though. Not the Pentarchy's judgment. Someone who rejected Chalcedon's Ecumenicity could as well say "The Council of Chalcedon is not Ecumenical because it promoted error on various issues. The end". Chalcedon is Ecumenical because the Pope approved. Or, if you wish, because the Pentarchy approved. You have to be consistent in the external requirements needed for an Ecumenical Council.

I will post excerpts from the Byzantine Emperor at the Council of Florence later on. I believe he said something like "I view this current Ecumenical Council to be no less holy than the previous ones". The participants at the Council of Florence believed it to be an Ecumenical Council.

I have quotes from Joseph Gill's "The Council of Florence".

Vanhyo, the Pentarchy did not approve of Ephesus II, therefore it was a Robber Council. Notably, for e.g. Pope St. Leo the Great did not approve.

Give another example of a Robber Council which was approved by Patriarchs and Representatives of all Five Sees?

I believe you might be getting these arguments from the Dimond Brothers heretical video. Which by the way, has been thoroughly refuted.

Again, everything you're asserting about Florence can be applied to the Photian Council of 879-880, with the exception being that Rome held that one as Ecumenical for hundreds of years before striking it from the record.

 

[Cavaradossi]

As mentioned in Samn!'s response, the council was not approved by the pentarchy as a whole. Not only were the representatives not in communication with the patriarchates they were representing, and not only did St. Mark of Ephesus reject the council, but the other three Eastern Patriarchates, when they received news of what had transpired at the council, only provisionally accepted the decision of their "representatives" until such a time when they could review the council's decisions. When such a review was carried out early in the 1440's, the other three Eastern Patriarchates decided not to accept Florence.

 

[MalpanaGiwargis]

Xavier, the modern Catholic list of which councils (up to that time) are ecumenical was assembled for the first time in 1586 by Bellarmine in his De controversiis (On Controversies); before him the number varied considerably, but his list came to be authoritative among Roman Catholics. He is the first author to flatly declare that the Pentarchy is not even necessary for ecumenical status, only papal approval. The Catholic position on what makes an ecumenical council is thus younger than the Council of Trent—it can hardly be surprising that the Orthodox don't share it.

You are trying to force Orthodoxy into Roman Catholic categories—it doesn't work like that. Is the Orthodox approach messy? Yes. Does the Orthodox approach make it difficult to account for all the data at times (e.g., Chalcedon)? Yes, sometimes. But the Catholic papal doctrine only gives the appearance of a solution to the problem. Besides papal approval, you have to be willing to effectively accept a papal "line-item veto," so that popes can accept parts of councils and not others—and always to the advantage of papal power. Funny how that works, huh?

 

[scamandrius]

Why isn't the Council of Florence considered by Orthodox Christians to be an Ecumenical Council? Even if the claim is (1) the Pentarchy must approve, and (2) the Byzantine Emperor must be present, both conditions were clearly fulfilled, beside the Papal approval. Therefore, Florence is an Ecumenical Council. Thoughts?

" In early April 1438, the Byzantine contingent, over 700 strong, arrived at Ferrara. On 9 April 1438, the first solemn session at Ferrara began, with the Eastern Roman Emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople and representatives of the Patriarchal Sees of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem in attendance and Pope Eugene IV presiding."

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence

When referring to the head of the Eastern Roman Empire, he is called the Eastern Roman Emperor. There never was a Byzantine Empire, a Byzantine Emperor, a Byzantine people.

 

[Katechon]

When referring to the head of the Eastern Roman Empire, he is called the Eastern Roman Emperor.

Or simply Roman Emperor, since during the time of the Seven Ecumenical Councils there wasn't even a pretender in the West.

 

[Pravoslavbob]

Why isn't the Council of Florence considered by Orthodox Christians to be an Ecumenical Council? Even if the claim is (1) the Pentarchy must approve, and (2) the Byzantine Emperor must be present, both conditions were clearly fulfilled, beside the Papal approval. Therefore, Florence is an Ecumenical Council. Thoughts?

" In early April 1438, the Byzantine contingent, over 700 strong, arrived at Ferrara. On 9 April 1438, the first solemn session at Ferrara began, with the Eastern Roman Emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople and representatives of the Patriarchal Sees of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem in attendance and Pope Eugene IV presiding."

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence

If you genuinely believe that communion with Rome is of paramount concern, why are you yourself not in full communion with Rome?

 

[biro]

The Eastern Empire was only called that because they lost a war against the Western one. Because no one in the East has ever sinned…

The name byzant comes from bezant, a coin.

 

[Katechon]

If you genuinely believe that communion with Rome is of paramount concern, why are you yourself not in full communion with Rome?

If he really is a parishioner of the SSPX or some other such group, his cult-like invocation of "papal authority" is as much ridiculous as it is historiographically tone deaf.

 

[Alpo2]

I kind of like SSPX and the like. It's nice to see that at least some in the RCC have a concept of Tradition which can overrule even everything that Pope says.

 

[Katechon]

I kind of like SSPX and the like. It's nice to see that at least some in the RCC have a concept of Tradition which can overrule even everything that Pope says.

Yeah, if they'd be consistent they'd reject Vatican I along with Vatican II. But they aren't. They invoke "papal authority" while undermining it on every level: magisterially, jurisdictionally, personally. I think "papal authority" is as a concept a source of immense pride among Westerners, so it is difficult to let go.

 

[Alpo2]

Yeah, if they'd be consistent they'd reject Vatican I along with Vatican II. But they aren't.

Yeah it's a bit illogical but at least they try to be consistently traditional. Many won't bother even trying.