Regarding an Orthodox objection to the Filioque..

[Parmandur]

It might be helpful to look at what was decided ecumenically at the Council of Florence, well after the Lombard:

For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm#3

[per_passionem_eius]

Orthodox believe that ALL bishops are Peter. Not just he who sits on his See.

Is that why there's no agreement between the different Orthodox churches on what councils they accept?

 
What in the world are you talking about?

The different Orthodox churches i.e. Greek, Russian, etc.

I'm still not following what you are talking about. Can you please give me an example of what you mean?

It sounds like I'm wrong about the different Orthodox churches disagreeing on what councils they recognize. Is that so? Do they all recognize the same ones?

[Azurestone]

Orthodox believe that ALL bishops are Peter. Not just he who sits on his See.

Is that why there's no agreement between the different Orthodox churches on what councils they accept?

 
What in the world are you talking about?

The different Orthodox churches i.e. Greek, Russian, etc.

I'm still not following what you are talking about. Can you please give me an example of what you mean?

It sounds like I'm wrong about the different Orthodox churches disagreeing on what councils they recognize. Is that so? Do they all recognize the same ones?

You may be confusing Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. The Oriental Orthodox, centered around the Alexandrian See, split from the Universal Church after the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD/ 4th EC) under a Christological misunderstanding. The Eastern Orthodox are those Four Sees that are no longer in communion with the Roman See presumably since 1054 AD. Though they have been separated for 1,500 years, they both have very similar traditions and an almost identical faith. However, they are not in communion with each other.

The Oriental Orthodox then only recognize the first three ECs being that they broke after the 4th, and the Eastern Orthodox only recognize the 7 ECs prior to the Great Schism.

[per_passionem_eius]

You may be confusing Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. The Oriental Orthodox, centered around the Alexandrian See, split from the Universal Church after the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD/ 4th EC) under a Christological misunderstanding. The Eastern Orthodox are those Four Sees that are no longer in communion with the Roman See presumably since 1054 AD. Though they have been separated for 1,500 years, they both have very similar traditions and an almost identical faith. However, they are not in communion with each other.

The Oriental Orthodox then only recognize the first three ECs being that they broke after the 4th, and the Eastern Orthodox only recognize the 7 ECs prior to the Great Schism.

Thanks! That's what I meant. I won't comment anymore, since it's off topic.

[Silouan]

You may be confusing Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. The Oriental Orthodox, centered around the Alexandrian See, split from the Universal Church after the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD/ 4th EC) under a Christological misunderstanding. The Eastern Orthodox are those Four Sees that are no longer in communion with the Roman See presumably since 1054 AD. Though they have been separated for 1,500 years, they both have very similar traditions and an almost identical faith. However, they are not in communion with each other.

The Oriental Orthodox then only recognize the first three ECs being that they broke after the 4th, and the Eastern Orthodox only recognize the 7 ECs prior to the Great Schism.

Thanks! That's what I meant. I won't comment anymore, since it's off topic.

Saying that there's no agreement between the various Orthodox Churches because the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Churches don't agree with each other would be the same as me saying Catholics don't agree on Vatican I because the various Old Catholic Churches reject it.

[Melkite]

It might be helpful to look at what was decided ecumenically at the Council of Florence, well after the Lombard:

For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm#3

Is there any truth to the claim that the Orthodox were forced to sign through starvation while they were there?

[Azurestone]

Is there any truth to the claim that the Orthodox were forced to sign through starvation while they were there?

I have heard it said, but I won't say it's true unless I have a source to back it up where I got it from.

This is from the book "The History of the Council of Florence" by Ivan N. Ostroumov. Translated from the Russian by Boris Popoff. This is the only source I have a copy. I don't have a copy of Fr. Joseph Gill's book (which I quoted earlier), which may give a slightly different point of view, so I can only give you this.

The day was fixed when the signing of the decree should take place. Dorotheus of Mitylene proposed to the Pope beforehand, to bribe over some of those who had not as yet consented to the union, and bribes were in fact resorted to. 1 On the 5th of July the whole Council of the Easterns assembled in the Emperor's palace. The Emperor was the first to sign the decree. The Metropolitan of Heraclea was absent on account of his illness, but was even obliged to sign the decree in his bed. No one thought of disturbing Mark of Ephesus, being convinced of his firmness. Isidore, Bessarion, and the Protosyncellus, joyfully signed their names. Then followed the signatures of the Metropolitans of Monemvasia, Cyzicum, Trebizond, Nicomedia, Tornovo, Mitylene, Moldovlachia, Amasia, Rhodes, Drystra, Gana, Melenicus, Drama, Anchialus, and those of eleven persons from the lower grades of the Constantinopolitan clergy. The Greeks signed without reading the decree beforehand. Its contents were only known to those who had drawn it up. 2 At all events most of the Greek Bishops conceding to the Pope's wish, and the Emperor's will, gave a written though reluctant, consent to the unjust union. Even those who were not allowed to vote at the Council, were now made to sign. Exceptions were only made for those who had either died, as the Patriarch Joseph, and the Metropolitan of Sardis, or those who had managed to get away from Florence, as was done by Isaiah of Stauropol and the Bishop of Tver. 3

p. 154

As soon as the travelers stepped on shore, the inhabitants of Constantinople assailed the Bishops with questions: "How did the Council end? Have we gained the victory?" Those, who had been forced to the union, or had joined it from interested motives, but had not as yet lost all conscience of their crime, did not conceal the truth. Feeling themselves now at liberty in their native land, amidst their orthodox brethren, they answered with heartfelt sorrow: "We have sold our faith, we have exchanged Orthodoxy for heterodoxy, and losing our former pure faith have become azymites. May our hands, which signed the unjust decree be cut off! May our tongues which have spoken consent with the Latins be plucked out!" These were the first words of the good but weak Pastors - Anthony of Heraclea, the oldest members of the Council, and others. Such news made a terrible impression on the orthodox townspeople. Everyone avoided the new arrivers, and those who had anything to do with them. The clergy who had remained in Constantinople would not even agree to officiate with those, who repenting of their consent to the union, declared that they were forced to it!

p.164-165
http://books.google.com/books?id=tIIEAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

[McNider]

It sounds like I'm wrong about the different Orthodox churches disagreeing on what councils they recognize. Is that so? Do they all recognize the same ones?

No, they don't. Even among the Eastern Orthodox, there are disagreements, as some will attempt to claim the Palamite synods as ecumenical. Others will cite the Council of Blachernae in 1285 as ecumenical since it was essentially a condemnation of Lyons II.

[TrentCath]

Is there any truth to the claim that the Orthodox were forced to sign through starvation while they were there?

I have heard it said, but I won't say it's true unless I have a source to back it up where I got it from.

This is from the book "The History of the Council of Florence" by Ivan N. Ostroumov. Translated from the Russian by Boris Popoff. This is the only source I have a copy. I don't have a copy of Fr. Joseph Gill's book (which I quoted earlier), which may give a slightly different point of view, so I can only give you this.

The day was fixed when the signing of the decree should take place. Dorotheus of Mitylene proposed to the Pope beforehand, to bribe over some of those who had not as yet consented to the union, and bribes were in fact resorted to. 1 On the 5th of July the whole Council of the Easterns assembled in the Emperor's palace. The Emperor was the first to sign the decree. The Metropolitan of Heraclea was absent on account of his illness, but was even obliged to sign the decree in his bed. No one thought of disturbing Mark of Ephesus, being convinced of his firmness. Isidore, Bessarion, and the Protosyncellus, joyfully signed their names. Then followed the signatures of the Metropolitans of Monemvasia, Cyzicum, Trebizond, Nicomedia, Tornovo, Mitylene, Moldovlachia, Amasia, Rhodes, Drystra, Gana, Melenicus, Drama, Anchialus, and those of eleven persons from the lower grades of the Constantinopolitan clergy. The Greeks signed without reading the decree beforehand. Its contents were only known to those who had drawn it up. 2 At all events most of the Greek Bishops conceding to the Pope's wish, and the Emperor's will, gave a written though reluctant, consent to the unjust union. Even those who were not allowed to vote at the Council, were now made to sign. Exceptions were only made for those who had either died, as the Patriarch Joseph, and the Metropolitan of Sardis, or those who had managed to get away from Florence, as was done by Isaiah of Stauropol and the Bishop of Tver. 3

p. 154

As soon as the travelers stepped on shore, the inhabitants of Constantinople assailed the Bishops with questions: "How did the Council end? Have we gained the victory?" Those, who had been forced to the union, or had joined it from interested motives, but had not as yet lost all conscience of their crime, did not conceal the truth. Feeling themselves now at liberty in their native land, amidst their orthodox brethren, they answered with heartfelt sorrow: "We have sold our faith, we have exchanged Orthodoxy for heterodoxy, and losing our former pure faith have become azymites. May our hands, which signed the unjust decree be cut off! May our tongues which have spoken consent with the Latins be plucked out!" These were the first words of the good but weak Pastors - Anthony of Heraclea, the oldest members of the Council, and others. Such news made a terrible impression on the orthodox townspeople. Everyone avoided the new arrivers, and those who had anything to do with them. The clergy who had remained in Constantinople would not even agree to officiate with those, who repenting of their consent to the union, declared that they were forced to it!

p.164-165
http://books.google.com/books?id=tIIEAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Perhaps we should balance this out from the other point of view 

'The Orthodox Eastern Church' By Fr Adrian Fortescue who was a renowned scholar writing the first and most accesible series of books on the eastern church's and considered becoming an Eastern Catholic at one point.

p177-184

'It was in the midst of the 'perfect peace' between the two halves of Christendom, in the year 1053, that a letter arrived for a latin bishop from one of his greek brothers..... The letter was written by Leo, formerly a cleark of the Church of Constantinople, and now Metropolitan of Achrida, and was addressed to John, Bishop of Tranum. But Leo says that he means it for 'all the bishops of the Franks and for the most venerable Pope'. It is an attack on all the customs of the Latin Church that differe from those of Constantinople. He is specially indignant at two -fasting on saturdays and the consecration of unleavened bread. These two customs he says are totally unchristian, they are nothing but a return to Jewish superstition....All through this story one is amazed at the impertinence of these Byzantines who will not mind their own business (no one ever asked them to use unleavened bread, and they could always eat as much as they liked on Saturday) and at the ridiculous charges they rake up. We may also note at once that throughout the quarrel that is coming now the question of the Filioque is hardly touched at all..... Meanwhile Cerularius (the ecumenical patriarch) having sent off this declaration of war (fortescue alleges he was behind the letter), proceeds to strengthen his position at home... He sends round to the other Patriarchs and to various metropolitans a treatise written in Latin by a monk of the Studium, Niketas Stethatos. Niketas asks in this treatise how the Romans "wisests and noblest of all races" can have fallen into such "horrible infirmities". He answers that certain Jews at the time of the apostles had, for the hope of wicked gain, corrupted the pure gospel at Rome. The "horrible infirmities" are Azyme bread for mass, fasting on saturday and celibacy. This last point was specially offensive to a Pope who was standing out for the celibacy of his clerks with all his might. ....he goes on to apply to them St Pauls words: "dogs, bad workmen, schismatics" also "hypocrites and liars, who forbid marriage and abstain from foods that God has made"
Cerularius' third move was to make it quite clear that he meant war to the Knife. There were a number of Latin Churches at Constantinople; the emperors Varangian guard who were all Norsemen and englishmen had one, so also the merchants from Amalfi and the Magyars; there were some latin monasteries too and the Papal Apocrisarius had a Latin chapel in his house. Cerularius has all these church's shut up, even the Apocrisarius' chapel, in defiance of the universal respect paid to embassies and he tells all the Latins in the city to stop being Azymites and to use the Byzantine rite. His chancellor, Nikephoros, who of course believed in the real presence just as we do, bursts open Latin tabernacles and tramples on the Blessed Sacrament, because it is consecrated in Azyme

Later describing the specific incident he states

But Cerularius has quite recovered from his idea of an alliance with the Pope; the letter that these legates brought with him doubtless helped the recovery. He is now very angry at their behaviour. The immemorial custom is for a Papal Legate to take the position of the Pope himself. He is the Popes representative and alter ego. We have seen that the Legates presided at general councils, taking rank before all the Patriarchs. But Cerularius wanted these Legates to sit below, not only himself, but all his Metropolitans too. That they refuse to do so, that they do not prostrate themselves before him and that they bear their crosiers in his diocese are the injuries he complains of to Peter of Antioch..... Cardinal Humbert composes a "dialogue between a Roman and a Constantinopolian" in which he quite temperately answers the charge of Judaism in our customs; and an answer to the treatise of Niketas Stethatos. This answer it not temperate. He writes violently as any Byzantine, and heaps up abuse epithets...Incredible as it may seem this language converted Niketas, he publicly retracts his book and curses all the enemies of the Roman Church. There seems to be no doubt the Emperor made him do so. Suddenly Pope Leo IX dies, just as Nicholas I had died in the middle of the negotiations....Cerularius now refuses to see the Legates and will have nothing to do with them; he had already taken the final step by striking the Popes name off his diptych. This was open schism. The legates prepare a bull of excommunication...We should note that this is the only sentence that the Roman Church ever pronounced against the Eastern Communion. She has never excommunicated it as such, nor the other patriarchs...

Regarding the failed unions
 p213-217

The Emperor very nearly left the Council because the Duke of Burgundy would not do him homage. The Greeks were always turning sulky and saying that they would go home if they were not treated properly...All through the Latins showed much more zeal for union than they did, and the Latins humoured their pride generously. It was agreed that the Latins should sit all down the Gospel side of the Church with the Pope at their head, and the Byzantines down the epistle side under the emperor (that is what they wanted!) after the Emperor sat the Patriarch. Only in one point could the Greeks not have their way: the Patriarchs throne had to be three steps lower than the Popes... Meanwhile the real business of the Council was this. First ten fathers from either side were elected to examine the differences between the Churches. .... The differences were: the Filioque, Azyme bread at mass, purgatory, the Epiklesis, the primacy. They soon agreed about Purgatory when they were told that material fire is not part of the faith of the Latins. They gave in altogether about the Epiklesis and admitted that consecration took place at the words of consecration. As for Azymes the Turkish armies at their very gates had made them see reason, they admitted that both leavened and unleavened bread were equally valid and lawful.... In the Filioque dispute Mark of Ephesus got in trouble for misquoting St Basil. At last the Greeks agreed to admit the formula of their own fathers, and both sides united in the confession that the Holy Ghost proceeds from one principe and that the truth is rightly expressed by the Latins who say " from the Father and the Son" as well as by the Greeks in their form "from the Father through the Son". The Easterns were not asked to add anything to their creed... Concerning the primacy they accepted this formula "The Pope is the Sovereign Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, to guide and rule the Church, though without prejudice to the rights and privileges of other Patriarchs".... As soon as the Emperor and his followers came home again to Constantinople they found every one in an uprorar against them. They had betrayed the Orthodox faith, they had all become Azymites, Creed-Tamperers, Cheese-eaters, dogs, heretics, hypocrites and Latins. Mark of Ephesus was the hero of the hour. But the Emperor kept to what he had done'

[Parmandur]

Ostroumov and  Fortescue are both problematic sources in this matter.  Both are more polemical than anything else.

The truth is, Florence taught the doctrine of the Cappadocian Fathers.  To deny Florence is to deny St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and the Patristic Faith as a whole, if Florence is properly understood.  Some of the Greek and Slavic Florentine Fathers embraced it wholeheartedly, to the point of martyrdom, red and white.  Some signed in a wishy-washy manner, and Mark of Ephesus refused to sign on principle.  The doctrine is firm, but the union was built on shaky ground.