Thank for sir for this thoughtful reflection on a difficult and complex topic! Of course, as an Orthodox Christian, I would have to disagree that the Council of Florence is binding. After all, nearly every Bishop recanted their assent to the council upon returning home. Are we to say that we are bound to councils by fulfilling certain legal criteria, and that because signatures appear on paper, the Holy Spirit cannot reveal the untruths spoken at the council? The whole history of ecumenical councils is messy and complex and so coming up with a consistent juridical theory is very difficult. This is why reception theory is the only historically honest one. It's important to note that "reception" does not require the participation of the laity, only that local Patriarchates (the entire local jurisdiction, not merely the person of the Patriarch) receive the council consistently over time. Additionally, I would argue that the Roman Church changing it's mind on the Council of Constantinople of 879, choosing to favour the council of 869 instead hundreds of years later to justify the addition of the filioque, acts as a defeater for the RC papal theory. If either Church attempts to argue that councilliar authority is an entirely legal reality, instead of a dynamic mystical process, then we end up with the Protestant conclusion that there are no enduring infallible mechanisms in the Church.
This article directly responds to the claim that "every Bishop recanted their assent to the council upon returning home." That's precisely what I seek to demonstrate is not true. Instead, from the historical record we know:
1. Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople supported the union but died before it was official. His successor, Metrophanes II, continued this supported and ratified the union.
2. Patriarch Philotheos I of Antioch accepted the union, as did his successor, Dorotheos II.
3. Patriarch Joachim of Jerusalem accepted the union.
4. Isidore of Kiev, representing the Patriarchate of Alexandria and acting as a legate, supported the union and continued to advocate for it afterward.
That's what history tells us. So who were these hierarchs who "all" immediately renounced their acceptance of Florence? I'd have to see some good evidence to substantiate that claim.
Second, let's suppose all of these patriarchs and bishops actually did repudiate the council they had once accepted. Why would that matter? When the apostles and elders declared in Acts 15 that, "it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...", would it have mattered if some or even most of those elders had later apostatized and repudiated their former decision? The church does act with juridical authority, and when she exercises it to the highest degree (i.e. universal anathemas), the Holy Spirit cannot permit those to be in error. As I demonstrated in this article, that's a point that all theologians at the time agreed on, both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Once again, if you're going to bring up topics addressed in this article, I recommend actually responding to the arguments I make about those topics, rather than ignoring them and trying to get me to reproduce them in the comments.
As for the Council of Constantinople 879 vs 869, why must we "choose" between them? Both of those councils were disciplinary, concerning the validity of the election of St. Ignatius vs Photius to the throne of Constantinople. As far as I can tell, Constantinople 879 forbade additions to the creed that altered the Nicene faith, which the Filioque doesn't do. Not to mention the fact that, frankly, Rome never did "add" the Filioque to the creed. The Filioque had always been in the West's liturgical version of the creed, it never existed without it. All Rome did in 1014 was add the already existent western creed to the liturgy. Contrary to popular belief, there was never a "unilateral insertion" of the Filioque into the creed by the pope, it just didn't happen.
Ultimately, if you reject the objectivity of the criteria for ecumenical councils, that's how you end up in Protestant land, which Mark of Ephesus came close to. You don't end up there by sticking to the traditional teaching that, if there is moral unanimity among the bishops and patriarchs in communion with the pope in a binding decree, then said decree is infallible.
Thank for sir for this thoughtful reflection on a difficult and complex topic! Of course, as an Orthodox Christian, I would have to disagree that the Council of Florence is binding. After all, nearly every Bishop recanted their assent to the council upon returning home. Are we to say that we are bound to councils by fulfilling certain legal criteria, and that because signatures appear on paper, the Holy Spirit cannot reveal the untruths spoken at the council? The whole history of ecumenical councils is messy and complex and so coming up with a consistent juridical theory is very difficult. This is why reception theory is the only historically honest one. It's important to note that "reception" does not require the participation of the laity, only that local Patriarchates (the entire local jurisdiction, not merely the person of the Patriarch) receive the council consistently over time. Additionally, I would argue that the Roman Church changing it's mind on the Council of Constantinople of 879, choosing to favour the council of 869 instead hundreds of years later to justify the addition of the filioque, acts as a defeater for the RC papal theory. If either Church attempts to argue that councilliar authority is an entirely legal reality, instead of a dynamic mystical process, then we end up with the Protestant conclusion that there are no enduring infallible mechanisms in the Church.
This article directly responds to the claim that "every Bishop recanted their assent to the council upon returning home." That's precisely what I seek to demonstrate is not true. Instead, from the historical record we know:
1. Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople supported the union but died before it was official. His successor, Metrophanes II, continued this supported and ratified the union.
2. Patriarch Philotheos I of Antioch accepted the union, as did his successor, Dorotheos II.
3. Patriarch Joachim of Jerusalem accepted the union.
4. Isidore of Kiev, representing the Patriarchate of Alexandria and acting as a legate, supported the union and continued to advocate for it afterward.
That's what history tells us. So who were these hierarchs who "all" immediately renounced their acceptance of Florence? I'd have to see some good evidence to substantiate that claim.
Second, let's suppose all of these patriarchs and bishops actually did repudiate the council they had once accepted. Why would that matter? When the apostles and elders declared in Acts 15 that, "it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...", would it have mattered if some or even most of those elders had later apostatized and repudiated their former decision? The church does act with juridical authority, and when she exercises it to the highest degree (i.e. universal anathemas), the Holy Spirit cannot permit those to be in error. As I demonstrated in this article, that's a point that all theologians at the time agreed on, both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Once again, if you're going to bring up topics addressed in this article, I recommend actually responding to the arguments I make about those topics, rather than ignoring them and trying to get me to reproduce them in the comments.
As for the Council of Constantinople 879 vs 869, why must we "choose" between them? Both of those councils were disciplinary, concerning the validity of the election of St. Ignatius vs Photius to the throne of Constantinople. As far as I can tell, Constantinople 879 forbade additions to the creed that altered the Nicene faith, which the Filioque doesn't do. Not to mention the fact that, frankly, Rome never did "add" the Filioque to the creed. The Filioque had always been in the West's liturgical version of the creed, it never existed without it. All Rome did in 1014 was add the already existent western creed to the liturgy. Contrary to popular belief, there was never a "unilateral insertion" of the Filioque into the creed by the pope, it just didn't happen.
Ultimately, if you reject the objectivity of the criteria for ecumenical councils, that's how you end up in Protestant land, which Mark of Ephesus came close to. You don't end up there by sticking to the traditional teaching that, if there is moral unanimity among the bishops and patriarchs in communion with the pope in a binding decree, then said decree is infallible.