-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M
What does the bible say about Traditions? Traditions are of Men Check out these verses to see what His word says about them: BibleGateway.com - Keyword Search: tradition
What do You think about traditions? They can be held or broken and it makes no difference to anything spiritual.
Are some traditions mandatory (does the bible ever say that you have to follow some sort of tradition), or are they all optional within life? What must be followed are God's MANDATES/COMMANDMENTS. These are not the traditions of men, done for the sake, (more or less) of doing them.
Maggie
What do You think about traditions? They can be held or broken and it makes no difference to anything spiritual.
Are some traditions mandatory (does the bible ever say that you have to follow some sort of tradition), or are they all optional within life? What must be followed are God's MANDATES/COMMANDMENTS. These are not the traditions of men, done for the sake, (more or less) of doing them.
Maggie
some traditions are set by God, e.g. some Jewish feasts and the Lord's Supper, others are man made. The latter are the ones that are tricky. The pitfall of ALL traditions is that they easily become observed mechanically, by rote, rather than with conscious understanding of why one is observing the tradition.
My Church is traditional Church.
Sacred Tradition and Bible r 2 unsplitable things.Our tradition started with Apostles and until present is kept unchanged.
There r traditions of man,but Sacred Tradition is God tradition,given to Apostles,until present unchanged.That is the meaning of Tradition in Church.
Sacred Tradition and Bible r 2 unsplitable things.Our tradition started with Apostles and until present is kept unchanged.
There r traditions of man,but Sacred Tradition is God tradition,given to Apostles,until present unchanged.That is the meaning of Tradition in Church.
N
This passage sums it up well , But there are more.
[size=+2]Mark 7
King James Version (KJV)
7 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.[/size]
Just from reading this we see traditions of men are a bad thing.
[size=+2]Mark 7
King James Version (KJV)
7 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.[/size]
Just from reading this we see traditions of men are a bad thing.
Most traditions of our church were not given to the apostles but were started by church fathers at least 100 years after Christ died on the cross.
As we are told in scripture, the Christian Jews and gentile Christians had problems. These escalated until most of the traditions of our church were originally simply anti Sematic. The holidays and worship day designated were done so they were opposed to the ones God gave in the OT. For instance, Sunday designated as Sabbath is partly because Jews worshipped on Saturday. The only scripture that points to this day is when a meeting told of in Acts was on Sunday. Sunday is never given as the Sabbath in scripture, but Sunday was always part of pagan worship. It is even named for the day of the sun, as in sun worship.
As we are told in scripture, the Christian Jews and gentile Christians had problems. These escalated until most of the traditions of our church were originally simply anti Sematic. The holidays and worship day designated were done so they were opposed to the ones God gave in the OT. For instance, Sunday designated as Sabbath is partly because Jews worshipped on Saturday. The only scripture that points to this day is when a meeting told of in Acts was on Sunday. Sunday is never given as the Sabbath in scripture, but Sunday was always part of pagan worship. It is even named for the day of the sun, as in sun worship.
I don't buy the Oral Tradition argument. Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy lay claim to oral tradition. But what happens when they come up with opposing teachings as in the procession of the Holy Spirit.? It's best to go with what is written as the Final Authority, after all it is the sure word of the Apostles and Prophets.
A
1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
I believe traditions referred to by Paul are found in the Bible and not a set formula of rituals and ceremonies but for example it is traditional to fed a stranger who enters your house. It is traditional or customary to help orphans and widows.
Or if you want a tradition that should be practiced in church we have this one of taking communion:
Paul also tells them not to eat all the food and get drunk before the other people arrive.
Traditions by themselves are not evil things. It is when the heart is not pure and the motives are not for the glory of God but for the pride of men or to oppress others that the outward act becomes a mockery of what it should be. Traditions can express the love of God and His laws and the stories He has taught us through the Bible if done with a heart looking to worship God.
For example the tradition around Christmas time to read the passages of Jesus birth and show the world the blessings that came in the body of a small child, for me I find it a time honored tradition. In addition to Christmas caroling and taking time to spend with family.
mandatory traditions? no
the only thing mandatory is believing in Jesus and walking with the Holy Spirit and bearing the fruit therein.
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
I believe traditions referred to by Paul are found in the Bible and not a set formula of rituals and ceremonies but for example it is traditional to fed a stranger who enters your house. It is traditional or customary to help orphans and widows.
Or if you want a tradition that should be practiced in church we have this one of taking communion:
Paul also tells them not to eat all the food and get drunk before the other people arrive.
Traditions by themselves are not evil things. It is when the heart is not pure and the motives are not for the glory of God but for the pride of men or to oppress others that the outward act becomes a mockery of what it should be. Traditions can express the love of God and His laws and the stories He has taught us through the Bible if done with a heart looking to worship God.
For example the tradition around Christmas time to read the passages of Jesus birth and show the world the blessings that came in the body of a small child, for me I find it a time honored tradition. In addition to Christmas caroling and taking time to spend with family.
mandatory traditions? no
the only thing mandatory is believing in Jesus and walking with the Holy Spirit and bearing the fruit therein.
The bible was constructed by a Church that respected it's own tradition at the time. Back then it resembled somewhat how the current Orthodox Churches are run. This was prior to the Roman Pope wanting control over everything.
So the Bible didn't need to mention tradition, because respecting tradition and the teaching of the Fathers was part of the Church.
Jesus does mention the disciples establishing his church (aka the start of tradition).
It is a fact that no one has the authority to deny, that Christianity was never established by Jesus or the early church fathers to be a 'bible based' religion only.
So when the church was started, they weren't even known as Christians yet. That wasn't until Antioch.
Now, the question, is there an unbroken apostolic tradition going back all the way to Antioch?
Yes, and it's still in operation today. Still performing traditional mass that the disciples of Jesus established.
About the Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese
So the Bible didn't need to mention tradition, because respecting tradition and the teaching of the Fathers was part of the Church.
Jesus does mention the disciples establishing his church (aka the start of tradition).
It is a fact that no one has the authority to deny, that Christianity was never established by Jesus or the early church fathers to be a 'bible based' religion only.
So when the church was started, they weren't even known as Christians yet. That wasn't until Antioch.
Now, the question, is there an unbroken apostolic tradition going back all the way to Antioch?
Yes, and it's still in operation today. Still performing traditional mass that the disciples of Jesus established.
About the Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese
David_1
It is interesting you needed to use the written Word to make your point of oral Tradition thus making the written Word the foundation.
I am not against tradition per se...as long as it doesn't contradict the clear teaching of what has been handed down through the Apostolic writings (Script-ure).
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
(Luk 1:1-4)
It is interesting you needed to use the written Word to make your point of oral Tradition thus making the written Word the foundation.
I am not against tradition per se...as long as it doesn't contradict the clear teaching of what has been handed down through the Apostolic writings (Script-ure).
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
(Luk 1:1-4)
It would be edifying to see the difference in the greek word for "traditions" that Jesus used in Matthew 15 and Mark 7.
Contrasted to the word Paul used for "traditions" in I Cor.11 and II Thess.2.
And if they are the same....how are they different, because the meanings are obviously much different.
Contrasted to the word Paul used for "traditions" in I Cor.11 and II Thess.2.
And if they are the same....how are they different, because the meanings are obviously much different.
I really appreciate what u use as arguments.To this people it is new unknown world.They think that Church on earth do not exist,that she fall under heresy in one time and still is influenced by it.But whole their view is obscured by Pope of Rome.They cannot see more far then Rome.And how could they,when particularly everyone of them is infallible!
Cheers!
Cheers!
By “our church” I meant the majority of organized churches today.
We aren’t discussing about the day of the resurrection, but traditions. Is it your point that we should make Sabbath the day of resurrection?
Some names of early church fathers who taught against Jews: Bishop of Antioch in 98 AD, Justin Martyr in 138 AD, Origen in 185 AD, St Augustine in 354 AD, Luther in 1543 AD.
We aren’t discussing about the day of the resurrection, but traditions. Is it your point that we should make Sabbath the day of resurrection?
Some names of early church fathers who taught against Jews: Bishop of Antioch in 98 AD, Justin Martyr in 138 AD, Origen in 185 AD, St Augustine in 354 AD, Luther in 1543 AD.
A
good idea... a little online research and we get this (for those interested lol)
1 Corinthians 11: 2
Strong #
3862 [e]paradoseisπαραδόσειςtraditionsN-AFP
2 Thess 2: 15
3862 [e]paradoseis παραδόσεις traditions N-AFP
Matthew 15
verse 2
3862 [e]paradosinπαράδοσινtraditionN-AFSverse 3
3862 [e]paradosinπαράδοσινtraditionN-AFSverse 6
3862 [e]paradosin παράδοσιν tradition N-AFS
Mark 7
Verse 3
3862 [e]paradosin παράδοσιν tradition N-AFS
same word, except one is singular and one is plural.
NAFS = Noun Active Feminine Singular
NAFP = Noun Active Feminine Plural
No one ever in Orthodox Church,West or East didn't had different teachings about proceding of Holy Spirit.They whole were Orthodox in sense of that word.Others were heretics(Arians,Nestorians,Monofisites,Iconoclasm).Until they dwelled in TRUTH,West and East were together and won all heresies.In one moment West Church changed teaching of Proceding of Holy Spirit,they changed the unchangeable thing THE CREED!From that second they are under anathema of the(i think) first 3 Ecumenical Councils.
One of my favourite soldiers of Truth is Saint Mark of Ephesus.He suffered a lot but as real soldier of Orthodoxy he didnt step out of the faith of holy fathers.I will give u an article about that.
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stmark.aspx
About false Florence union!
This argument has been going on since Jesus time on earth. I can only give my opinion which goes by faith. People say the churches have gone astray and they have brought back the truth.
Jesus established the church and I have faith in him. Faith that he is more powerful than any man, so if he said he will always be with his church then I can not doubt him. I can not understand why I need to believe when man say the church has been taken by the devil. That would make the devil more powerful than Jesus.
So for me it is a matter of faith in God that he has always remained with his church.
Jesus established the church and I have faith in him. Faith that he is more powerful than any man, so if he said he will always be with his church then I can not doubt him. I can not understand why I need to believe when man say the church has been taken by the devil. That would make the devil more powerful than Jesus.
So for me it is a matter of faith in God that he has always remained with his church.
St. Mark of Ephesus and the False Union of Florence
Part III of His Life
by Archimandrite Amvrossy Pogodin
VI. THE CONCLUSION OF THE UNION
TO THE OTHER afflictions which the Orthodox delegation suffered in Florence was added the death of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Patriarch was found dead in his room.
On the table lay (supposedly) his testament, Extrema Sententia, consisting in all of some lines in which he declared that he accepted everything that the Church of Rome confesses. And then: "In like manner I acknowledge the Holy Father of Fathers, the Supreme Pontiff and Vicar of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Pope of Old Rome. Likewise, I acknowledge purgatory. In affirmation of this, I affix my signature."
There is no doubt whatever that Patriarch Joseph did not write this document. The German scholar Frommann, who made a detailed investigation of the "Testament" of Patriarch Joseph, says: "This document is so Latinized and corresponds so little to the opinion expressed by the Patriarch several days before, that its spuriousness is evident." [1] The ''Testament" appears in the history of the Council of Florence quite late; contemporaries of the Council knew nothing of it.
And so the Greek delegation lost its Patriarch. Although the Patriarch was no pillar of Orthodoxy, and though one may reproach him in much, still one cannot deny that with his whole soul he grieved for Orthodoxy and never allowed himself or anyone else to injure St. Mark. Being already in deep old age [2], he lacked the energy to defend the Church of which he was head, but history cannot reproach him for betraying the Church. Death spared him from the many and grievous humiliations which the Orthodox Church subsequently had to endure. And on the other hand the absence of his signature on the Act of Union later gave occasion for the defenders of Orthodoxy to contest the pretension of the Council of Florence to the significance and title of ''Ecumenical Council," because the Act of every Ecumenical Council must be signed first of all by the Patriarchs.
After the death of the Patriarch, as Syropoulos informs us, Emperor John Paleologos took the direction of the Church into his own hands. This anticanonical situation, although often encountered in Byzantine history, as well in a positive as in a negative manifestation, was strictly condemned by St. Mark in one of his epistles, where he says: ''Let no one dominate in our faith: neither emperor, nor hierarch, nor false council, nor anyone else, but only the one God, Who both Himself and through His Disciples has handed it down to us." [3]
Let us set forth in brief the further history of the negotiations between the Orthodox and the Latins—or, to speak more truly, the history of the capitulation of the Orthodox. The Orthodox were obliged to accept the Latin teaching of the filioque and acknowledge the Latin dogma of the Procession of the Holy Spirit, in the sense of His Existence, from the Two Hypostases. Then the Orthodox were obliged to declare that the filioque,as an addition within the Symbol of Faith, had always been a canonical and blessed act. By this alone there were reduced to naught all the objections of the Greeks from the time of Patriarch Photios, as well as the works of St. Mark of Ephesus and the interdictions for changing the Symbol of Faith which had been made at the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils. One should also note that not all the Roman Popes had approved of the filioque,and several had considered its introduction into the Symbol of Faith completely uncanonical. But now all this was forgotten. Everything was sacrificed to the demands of Pope Eugenius and his cardinals.
Further, it was demanded of the Orthodox to accept the Latin teaching concerning the consecration of the Holy Gifts and renounce their own as expressed in the performance of the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Church. [4] Besides, this was expressed by the Latins in disdainful declarations concerning the Liturgical practice of the Eastern Church.
Finally, the Orthodox were obliged to sign and acknowledge a confession of Papism, expressed thus: "We decree that the Holy Apostolic Throne and Roman Pontiff possess a primacy over the whole earth, and that this Roman Pontiff is the Successor of the blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is the true Vicar of Christ, the Head of the whole Church, Pastor and Teacher of all Christians; and that our Lord Jesus Christ in the person of St. Peter has given him full authority to shepherd, direct and rule the whole Church, as is likewise contained in the acts of the Ecumenical Councils and in the holy canons." [5] The Orthodox were likewise forced to acknowledge purgatory.
And so Orthodoxy was to cease to exist. Something even more painful was the fact that Orthodoxy had been sold, and not merely betrayed. For when a majority of the Orthodox delegates had found that the Vatican's demands were completely unacceptable, certain warm partisans of the Union had asked the Pope to inform them openly what advantages Byzantium would derive from the Union. The Pope grasped the "business" side of the question and offered the following: (1) The Vatican would provide the means to send the Greeks back to Constantinople. (2) 300 (!) soldiers would be maintained at Papal expense in Constantinople for the defense of the capital against the Turks (3) Two ships would be maintained on the Bosphorus for defense of the city. (4) A crusade would go through Constantinople. (5) The Pope would summon the Western sovereigns to the aid of Byzantium. The last two promises were purely theoretical. However, when the negotiations came to a dead end, and the Emperor himself was ready to break off further negotiations, the whole affair was settled by four metropolitans, partisans of the Union; and the affair was concluded with a lavish entertainment given by the Pope; theological disputes concerning the privileges of the See of Rome were conducted over wineglasses.
The end came at last. An Act of Union was drawn up in which the Orthodox renounced their Orthodoxy and accepted all the Latin formulas and innovations which had only just appeared in the bosom of the Latin Church, such as the teaching on purgatory. They accepted also an extreme form of Papism, by this act renouncing the ecclesiology that was the essence of the Orthodox Church. All the Orthodox delegates accepted and signed the Union, whether for themselves or, in the case of some, for the Eastern Patriarchs, by whom they had been entrusted to represent them. The signing, on July 5, 1439, was accompanied by a triumphant service, and after the solemn declaration of the Union, read in Latin and Greek, the Greek delegates kissed the Pope's knee.
Administratively speaking, the whole Orthodox Church signed: Emperor John, the metropolitans and representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs, the Metropolitan of Kiev Isidore, and the Russian Bishop Abraham. Only one hierarch did not sign. It would be superfluous to mention his name: St. Mark of Ephesus. But no one paid the least attention to him. What was one man, and he humiliated and fatally ill, in comparison with the all powerful Vatican, headed by the mighty Pope Eugenius IV? What was this one Greek in comparison with the whole multitude of Greek dignitaries headed by Emperor John, and the Greek metropolitans? There is a Russian proverb: ''One alone on the field is no warrior." However, in this one man was represented the whole might of the Orthodox Church. This one man represented in himself the whole Orthodox Church. He was a giant of giants, bearing in himself all the sanctity of Orthodoxy and all its might! And this is why, when Pope Eugenius was solemnly shown by his cardinals the Act of Union, signed by all the Greek delegates, he said, not finding on it the signature of St. Mark: "And so we have accomplished nothing." All the success of the Vatican was illusory and short-lived. The Pope attempted by every means to compel St. Mark to sign the Union, a fact that is attested both by Andrew of Rhodes [6] and Syropoulos. [7] The Pope demanded that St. Mark be deprived of his rank then and there for his refusal to sign the Act of Union. But Emperor John did not allow him to be harmed, because in the depths of his heart he respected St. Mark.
Syropoulos relates the final meeting of St. Mark with the Pope. "The Pope asked of the Emperor that St. Mark appear before him. The Emperor, having summoned him beforehand, persuaded him, saying:'When the Pope asks you to appear before him already two and three times, you must go to him; but have no fear, for I have spoken and requested and arranged with the Pope so that you will be given no offense or injury. And so, go and listen to everything he says, and reply openly in whatever manner will seem to you the most suitable.' And so Mark went to appear before the Pope, and finding him sitting informally in his own quarters with his cardinals and his bishops, he was uncertain in what fashion he should express respect to the Pope. Seeing that all who surrounded the Pope were sitting, he said: 'I have been suffering from a kidney ailment and severe gout and have not the strength to stand,' and proceeded to sit in his place. The Pope spoke long with Mark; his aim was to persuade him also to follow the decision of the Council and affirm the Union, and if he refused to do this, then he should know that he would be subject to the same interdictions which previous Ecumenical Councils laid upon the obstinate, who, deprived of every gift of the Church, were case out as heretics. To the Pope's words Mark gave an extensive, commanding reply. Concerning the interdictions with which the Pope threatened him, he said: 'The Councils of the Church have condemned as rebels those who have transgressed against some dogma and have preached thus and fought for this, for which reason also they are called ''heretics''; and from the beginning the Church has condemned the heresy itself, and only then has it condemned the leaders of the heresy and its defenders. But I have by no means preached my own teaching, nor have I introduced anything new in the Church, nor defended any foreign and false doctrine; but I have held only that teaching which the Church received in perfect form from our Saviour, and in which it has steadfastly remained to this day: the teaching which the Holy Church of Rome, before the schism that occurred between us, possessed no less than our Eastern Church; the teaching which, as holy, you formerly were wont to praise, and often at this very Council you mentioned with respect and honor, and which no one could reproach or dispute. And if I hold it and do not allow myself to depart from it, what Council will subject me to the interdiction to which heretics are subject? What sound and pious mind will act thus with me? For first of all one must condemn the teaching which I hold; but if you acknowledge it as pious and Orthodox, then why am I deserving of punishment?' Having said this and more of the like, and listened to the Pope, he returned to his quarters." [8]
St. Mark of Ephesus and the False Union of Florence: Part III from His Life
Part III of His Life
by Archimandrite Amvrossy Pogodin
VI. THE CONCLUSION OF THE UNION
TO THE OTHER afflictions which the Orthodox delegation suffered in Florence was added the death of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Patriarch was found dead in his room.
On the table lay (supposedly) his testament, Extrema Sententia, consisting in all of some lines in which he declared that he accepted everything that the Church of Rome confesses. And then: "In like manner I acknowledge the Holy Father of Fathers, the Supreme Pontiff and Vicar of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Pope of Old Rome. Likewise, I acknowledge purgatory. In affirmation of this, I affix my signature."
There is no doubt whatever that Patriarch Joseph did not write this document. The German scholar Frommann, who made a detailed investigation of the "Testament" of Patriarch Joseph, says: "This document is so Latinized and corresponds so little to the opinion expressed by the Patriarch several days before, that its spuriousness is evident." [1] The ''Testament" appears in the history of the Council of Florence quite late; contemporaries of the Council knew nothing of it.
And so the Greek delegation lost its Patriarch. Although the Patriarch was no pillar of Orthodoxy, and though one may reproach him in much, still one cannot deny that with his whole soul he grieved for Orthodoxy and never allowed himself or anyone else to injure St. Mark. Being already in deep old age [2], he lacked the energy to defend the Church of which he was head, but history cannot reproach him for betraying the Church. Death spared him from the many and grievous humiliations which the Orthodox Church subsequently had to endure. And on the other hand the absence of his signature on the Act of Union later gave occasion for the defenders of Orthodoxy to contest the pretension of the Council of Florence to the significance and title of ''Ecumenical Council," because the Act of every Ecumenical Council must be signed first of all by the Patriarchs.
After the death of the Patriarch, as Syropoulos informs us, Emperor John Paleologos took the direction of the Church into his own hands. This anticanonical situation, although often encountered in Byzantine history, as well in a positive as in a negative manifestation, was strictly condemned by St. Mark in one of his epistles, where he says: ''Let no one dominate in our faith: neither emperor, nor hierarch, nor false council, nor anyone else, but only the one God, Who both Himself and through His Disciples has handed it down to us." [3]
Let us set forth in brief the further history of the negotiations between the Orthodox and the Latins—or, to speak more truly, the history of the capitulation of the Orthodox. The Orthodox were obliged to accept the Latin teaching of the filioque and acknowledge the Latin dogma of the Procession of the Holy Spirit, in the sense of His Existence, from the Two Hypostases. Then the Orthodox were obliged to declare that the filioque,as an addition within the Symbol of Faith, had always been a canonical and blessed act. By this alone there were reduced to naught all the objections of the Greeks from the time of Patriarch Photios, as well as the works of St. Mark of Ephesus and the interdictions for changing the Symbol of Faith which had been made at the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils. One should also note that not all the Roman Popes had approved of the filioque,and several had considered its introduction into the Symbol of Faith completely uncanonical. But now all this was forgotten. Everything was sacrificed to the demands of Pope Eugenius and his cardinals.
Further, it was demanded of the Orthodox to accept the Latin teaching concerning the consecration of the Holy Gifts and renounce their own as expressed in the performance of the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Church. [4] Besides, this was expressed by the Latins in disdainful declarations concerning the Liturgical practice of the Eastern Church.
Finally, the Orthodox were obliged to sign and acknowledge a confession of Papism, expressed thus: "We decree that the Holy Apostolic Throne and Roman Pontiff possess a primacy over the whole earth, and that this Roman Pontiff is the Successor of the blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is the true Vicar of Christ, the Head of the whole Church, Pastor and Teacher of all Christians; and that our Lord Jesus Christ in the person of St. Peter has given him full authority to shepherd, direct and rule the whole Church, as is likewise contained in the acts of the Ecumenical Councils and in the holy canons." [5] The Orthodox were likewise forced to acknowledge purgatory.
And so Orthodoxy was to cease to exist. Something even more painful was the fact that Orthodoxy had been sold, and not merely betrayed. For when a majority of the Orthodox delegates had found that the Vatican's demands were completely unacceptable, certain warm partisans of the Union had asked the Pope to inform them openly what advantages Byzantium would derive from the Union. The Pope grasped the "business" side of the question and offered the following: (1) The Vatican would provide the means to send the Greeks back to Constantinople. (2) 300 (!) soldiers would be maintained at Papal expense in Constantinople for the defense of the capital against the Turks (3) Two ships would be maintained on the Bosphorus for defense of the city. (4) A crusade would go through Constantinople. (5) The Pope would summon the Western sovereigns to the aid of Byzantium. The last two promises were purely theoretical. However, when the negotiations came to a dead end, and the Emperor himself was ready to break off further negotiations, the whole affair was settled by four metropolitans, partisans of the Union; and the affair was concluded with a lavish entertainment given by the Pope; theological disputes concerning the privileges of the See of Rome were conducted over wineglasses.
The end came at last. An Act of Union was drawn up in which the Orthodox renounced their Orthodoxy and accepted all the Latin formulas and innovations which had only just appeared in the bosom of the Latin Church, such as the teaching on purgatory. They accepted also an extreme form of Papism, by this act renouncing the ecclesiology that was the essence of the Orthodox Church. All the Orthodox delegates accepted and signed the Union, whether for themselves or, in the case of some, for the Eastern Patriarchs, by whom they had been entrusted to represent them. The signing, on July 5, 1439, was accompanied by a triumphant service, and after the solemn declaration of the Union, read in Latin and Greek, the Greek delegates kissed the Pope's knee.
Administratively speaking, the whole Orthodox Church signed: Emperor John, the metropolitans and representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs, the Metropolitan of Kiev Isidore, and the Russian Bishop Abraham. Only one hierarch did not sign. It would be superfluous to mention his name: St. Mark of Ephesus. But no one paid the least attention to him. What was one man, and he humiliated and fatally ill, in comparison with the all powerful Vatican, headed by the mighty Pope Eugenius IV? What was this one Greek in comparison with the whole multitude of Greek dignitaries headed by Emperor John, and the Greek metropolitans? There is a Russian proverb: ''One alone on the field is no warrior." However, in this one man was represented the whole might of the Orthodox Church. This one man represented in himself the whole Orthodox Church. He was a giant of giants, bearing in himself all the sanctity of Orthodoxy and all its might! And this is why, when Pope Eugenius was solemnly shown by his cardinals the Act of Union, signed by all the Greek delegates, he said, not finding on it the signature of St. Mark: "And so we have accomplished nothing." All the success of the Vatican was illusory and short-lived. The Pope attempted by every means to compel St. Mark to sign the Union, a fact that is attested both by Andrew of Rhodes [6] and Syropoulos. [7] The Pope demanded that St. Mark be deprived of his rank then and there for his refusal to sign the Act of Union. But Emperor John did not allow him to be harmed, because in the depths of his heart he respected St. Mark.
Syropoulos relates the final meeting of St. Mark with the Pope. "The Pope asked of the Emperor that St. Mark appear before him. The Emperor, having summoned him beforehand, persuaded him, saying:'When the Pope asks you to appear before him already two and three times, you must go to him; but have no fear, for I have spoken and requested and arranged with the Pope so that you will be given no offense or injury. And so, go and listen to everything he says, and reply openly in whatever manner will seem to you the most suitable.' And so Mark went to appear before the Pope, and finding him sitting informally in his own quarters with his cardinals and his bishops, he was uncertain in what fashion he should express respect to the Pope. Seeing that all who surrounded the Pope were sitting, he said: 'I have been suffering from a kidney ailment and severe gout and have not the strength to stand,' and proceeded to sit in his place. The Pope spoke long with Mark; his aim was to persuade him also to follow the decision of the Council and affirm the Union, and if he refused to do this, then he should know that he would be subject to the same interdictions which previous Ecumenical Councils laid upon the obstinate, who, deprived of every gift of the Church, were case out as heretics. To the Pope's words Mark gave an extensive, commanding reply. Concerning the interdictions with which the Pope threatened him, he said: 'The Councils of the Church have condemned as rebels those who have transgressed against some dogma and have preached thus and fought for this, for which reason also they are called ''heretics''; and from the beginning the Church has condemned the heresy itself, and only then has it condemned the leaders of the heresy and its defenders. But I have by no means preached my own teaching, nor have I introduced anything new in the Church, nor defended any foreign and false doctrine; but I have held only that teaching which the Church received in perfect form from our Saviour, and in which it has steadfastly remained to this day: the teaching which the Holy Church of Rome, before the schism that occurred between us, possessed no less than our Eastern Church; the teaching which, as holy, you formerly were wont to praise, and often at this very Council you mentioned with respect and honor, and which no one could reproach or dispute. And if I hold it and do not allow myself to depart from it, what Council will subject me to the interdiction to which heretics are subject? What sound and pious mind will act thus with me? For first of all one must condemn the teaching which I hold; but if you acknowledge it as pious and Orthodox, then why am I deserving of punishment?' Having said this and more of the like, and listened to the Pope, he returned to his quarters." [8]
St. Mark of Ephesus and the False Union of Florence: Part III from His Life