Doctrinal inflexibility within Orthodoxy undermined defense against the Ottomans

Evidence

The heart of the tension was a theological one. The Orthodox were firm on their creed and we will come to see how they refused any compromise with the Latin West. Even at the pleas of the Byzantine Emperor and the presence of the Ottomans at the walls, the Orthodox clergy refused to bend to the doctrine of the West. They knew the Ottomans, despite being of a foreign religion, would require no such theological compromise. — Ali Qureshi, The Fall of Constantinople, 24

Categorization

• QUESTION: Which specific doctrinal points (e.g. filioque, papal supremacy, Purgatory) were the non-negotiable sticking points? Worth chasing.
• SEED: Potential essay angle: how theological refusal to compromise can be causally decisive in military and political outcomes.
• XREF: connects to: Joseph Bryennius, a Byzantine theologian said, ‘Let no one be deceived by delusive hopes that the Italian allied troops will sooner or later come to us. But if they do pretend to rise to defend us, they will take arms in order to destroy our city, race, and name.’ The military aid of the Latin might push off the Ottoman threat, but this assistance would have far worse consequence than those the rule of the Ottomans would have. Indeed, the Latins would require doctrinal subordination and recognition of papal superiority.; The Latin doctrine differed from the Orthodox in regard to papal supremacy, the filioque clause, and unleavened bread. With these tensions unresolved between the churches, the Ottomans may have been seen as a means to avoid a forced compromise which Latin rule might bring about. The Ottomans on the other hand would only impose a tax upon the Christian population. This financial subservience was the only toll they had to pay to the Ottomans, and perhaps this option was more economical than changing their creed under a Latin reign.; In regards to the doctrinal differences of the Latins, some Orthodox had particularly staunch views. Patriarch Michael I Cerularius would state that Latin interpolations in the doctrine of the filioque constituted, ‘an evil and even the worst of evils.’ While the Orthodox did see the Muslims as a threat, the danger posed by them could never be enough to require a compromise in doctrine. The Orthodox held so firmly on to their sense and definition of Christianity, despite the presence of a ‘common enemy,’ the Orthodox refused to yield to the conditions of the Latin West for military aid. While some Orthodox clergy did make way for union with the Latin church at the Council of Florence, when they arrived back to Constantinople, most reneged their signatures. (+7 more)

Broader Connections

• Orthodox clergy’s depiction of Ottomans conflated religious and ethnic identity. #complicates (0.60) — Ali Qureshi, The Fall of Constantinople, 46
• Byzantine Orthodox preferred Muslim conquest over theological compromise with Latin Christians #corroborates (0.55) — Ali Qureshi, The Fall of Constantinople, 25
• Historical scholarship overstates Christianity’s unity against adversaries. #corroborates (0.40) — Ali Qureshi, The Fall of Constantinople, 62