www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Universal jurisdiction, Florence question

The 1302 bull Unam Sanctam contained the statement "it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (or, to put it in a less negative but logically equivalent form, all who are being saved are subject to the Roman Pontiff) which is considered a dogma by Roman Catholics.

I�m wondering if anyone who�s an expert on the reunion council of Florence could answer this question: how did that council deal with Unam Sanctam, with regard to the pope�s jurisdiction?

(Please note that I�m not asking about the question of salvation outside the church. In that regard we have the statement of Cantate Domino: "It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." That doesn�t mention the jurisdiction of the pope, however.)

Thanks in advance,
Peter.

That's only true for Roman Catholics. The Eastern Churches have never accepted that formula, nor have they ever been asked to accept it, to my knowledge.

Nick

That's funny. I've had Orthodox Catholics use it with me to demonstrate that old Eli will not be saved.

Eli the Mensch

It is funny, and a little sad too.

People who dig up these documents by Popes claiming their rights and unique priveleges, need to read a good history of the Papacy, and understand what was going on while these claims were being made.

It is much more about the struggles of the medieval papacy, and has nothing to do with good theology.

Benedict XVI knows all that, and that is why he says an earlier model of the papacey (eg. before all that medieval triumphalistic nonsense) will serve as a model for the future.

Nick

Dear Peter,

I'm no expert on Florence, but it is clear the Emperor sent his Greek theologians there to achieve, first and foremost, the union of the Churches for the expressed purpose of gaining military support from the West in opposing the Turks.

Interestingly enough, St Mark Eugenikos, Archbishop of Ephesus, came to that council as a UNIONIST and laid out the only requirement that the Latin Church remove the Filioque from the Creed. That appears to have been the only requirement for the union of the Churches.

The issue of papal jurisdiction with respect to the Eastern Churches seems not have been a problem at the time.

For the Orthodox, the pope of Rome could only lay claim to the Petrine Ministry IF he was, in fact, orthodox in doctrine.

The Filioque issue was the one great Western heresy on the subject of Triadology.

That one word could have such an impact should come as no surprise if we consider that one word also led to the separation of the Oriental Miaphysite Churches on the issue of Christology.

As one Orthodox theologian put it, as quoted by Fr. John Meyendorff, "When a Latin tells you that the pope is the successor of St Peter, do not argue with him for the primacy is good for the Church. Only let him show you that the pope confesses the faith of Peter and, if so, then let him enjoy the privileges of Peter."

Alex

It would help if we agreed on the orthodoxy of Pope Leo I. The Orthodox veneration of Pope Leo, but their rejection of the orthodoxy of the creed he sent the Spanish bishops, has always troubled me.

It is possible to venerate a saint while simultaneously disagreeing with many of the things he said. In fact, I venerate St. Augustine of Hippo, and yet I disagree completely with his Trinitarian theology.

Dear Byzkat,

I understand that the Miaphysite Churches have a thing or two to say about Pope St Leo too!

Apotheoun's point is well taken (you mean "Blessed Augustine" Todd, don't you? ).

In fact, there are saints that are venerated by one Church and not by another due to differing views on their orthodoxy etc.

Pope Saint Liberius is one such saint, venerated in the East and only locally in the West - he was the first pope not to have been entered into the canon of pope-saints by Rome.

It was he who was present at the miracle of Our Lady of the Snows in Rome when snow fell on August 5th to demarcate the spot where a large cathedral was to be built - today's Santa Maria Maggiore that I had the privilege and blessing of seeing when I was in Rome on June 28th of this year.

There is also a "Saint John the Martyr" venerated on the Isle of Rhodes by the local Greek Orthodox faithful. He was killed by Turks and he has been venerated there ever since.

The fact that he was a Roman Catholic seems to make no difference to the good Orthodox folk there! (And his cult is totally unknown in the West).

Alex

I've been waiting for Todd to come in here with a refutation of this assertion, since he is quick at other times to cite Father Joe Gill's text on the Council of Florence. Since he has not commented yet, I will.

The Filioque as doctrine, the Addition of filioque to the Creed, Purgatory, Eucharist and Papal Primacy were the five primary issues addressed during the discussions of union on the floor of the Council of Florence.

When the Union was repudiated there was a formal decree stating, according to Gill:

"...when in a Synod held in Constantinople it drew up a formula for the reception of Latin converts. The candidates, before reciting the Creed without filioque, had in a series of questions and answers first to denounce filioque as doctrine and the Addition, and the Council of Florence with ALL its teaching..." p.411

There was much more at stake there than the Addition of filioque to the Creed.

Eli

Dearest Brother Eli,

But not at first and we MUST take into consideration the political context of Florence (which theologians are in the habit of often ignoring).

As Fr. Meyendorff discussed, St Mark of Ephesus put the Filioque as the ONLY minimum requirement for the achievement of the unity of the Churches.

What happened later, when talks broke down and the Latin party refused to budge on the Filioque was what often happens in situations like that. More and more issues came to the fore, including Purgatory (and after the Filioque issue was left unchanged, St Mark offered the Latins a "non possumus" on that - he was quite shocked, at the time, that the Latin Church had gone ahead and divided up the afterlife into neat "places" and "categories" that was unheard of by the Greek Fathers).

The result of the Council of Florence was an entirely, one-sided Latin confession of the faith to be agreed to by the Greeks - or else.

St Mark was the only one who refused to obey his Emperor by turning his back on the Orthodox Church to sign the instrument of unity at Florence.

And most of the Greeks who did sign (with notable exceptions like Isidore of Kyiv who was jailed when he got home and later escaped to Italy from where he worked to help release his countrymen taken captive by the Turks) these repudiated their signatures.

However, St Mark refused to acknowledge their repudations as valid and even insisted, in his last will and testament, that they NOT be present at his funeral etc.

So the primary issue was the Filioque - the Greeks were not naive to the precarious political position of their Emperor and why he was really sending them to Florence.

The Greeks would not budge on the Filioque and when the Latins wouldn't, a full-blown theological exchange took place that resulted in a statement of union where Latin theology gained ascendancy (with some minor allowances to the Greeks e.g. they had to believe in the Filioque but did not need to actually say it during the recitation of the Creed, they had to believe and use the word "Purgatory" but they need not believe it is a "cleansing fire" etc.).

This is why Florence was an abysmal failure from the point of view of the East.

Had the Latins removed the Filioque, the other contentious issues (which certainly were there) could have been worked out together over time once the Churches were reunited. This was also the hope of St Mark of Ephesus, as Fr. John Meyendorff also affirmed.

We've discussed all these issues on this forum many times before as well, with Todd and with others. And you will be aware of Todd's quite articulate position on the Filioque too!

Alex

That is one possible view. I accept that as it is. I do not accept it as Father Joe's first or last word on the Council. It is too facile for either the political or the theological intricacies of the period and the place.

It is certainly not Ivan Ostromoff's viewpoint in his history of the Council of Florence as translated by Basil Popoff.

And Meyendorff had nothing more than the other two historians to work from and something rather less in that he did not convert his primary energies to that effort as he did, for example, in making us all conversant with the hesychasm of St. Gregory.

It is one thing to be articulate. It is quite another to be in the right.

Eli

Eli,

The problem is, you think you are always in the right.

So why bother discussing with others at all, unless you know they will agree with you?

That is what is truly "facile" here.

We are posting here, we are not writing doctoral dissertations - and if you would like to do one on Florence, please know that there are other avenues than this forum to do it.

I really don't know what you are up to here, or what it is you have against me, or others who dare to either disagree with you or to offer another view that you will accept, even though you think it "facile."

My final word.

Alex

Well, Alex, people do disagree with me here. Some of them, even, delight in doing so in highly personal ways.

I do my best to reply with substance not personal attributions or charges.

I don't take offense at your behavior here or elsewhere this morning.

I will continue to offer substantial comments where I am able to do so.

I am sorry that you take such offense at my very person, but I don't intend to go crawl in a hole so that you can be comfy.

Eli

Eli:
I don't think Alex takes offense at your very person. I think what is offensive to him, to me, and to others, is that your responses to those who disagree with you often seem (at least to me) condescending and self-righteous. Please consider how the manner in which you state your opinions can become the source of offense to others.
In peace,
Ryan

Talk about condescending and self-righteous! Wow!