Dezhnyuk Sergey - Council of Florence. The Unrealized Union

COUNCIL OF FLORENCE: THE UNREALIZED UNION
APPROVED:
Adviser
Reader
Dean
COUNCIL OF FLORENCE: THE UNREALIZED UNION
by
Sergey Fedorovich Dezhnyuk
A Project Report
Submitted to the Faculty
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
Masters of Theological Studies
Phillips Theological Seminary
Tulsa, OK
May 2015
Copyright © 2015 by Sergey F Dezhnyuk
All rights reserved
To Zhuk
Whose understanding is my sole comfort in the chilling silence of the cold cosmos.
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance.
—Robert Quillen
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: THE COUNCIL...................................................................................................................1

CHAPTER 2: WHAT WENT WRONG....................................................................................................35
CHAPTER 3: TO THE BITTER END......................................................................................................50
WORKS CITED........................................................................................................................................72
ADDITIONAL REFERENCE MATERIAL.............................................................................................75
v
PREFACE
The Council of Ferrara-Florence (hereafter, CF) was the last de jure Ecumenical
Council of the Christian Church. In 1439, it produced the short-lived Union between the
Roman Catholic Church and the conglomerate of Eastern Orthodox Churches. The
importance of this council is hard to exaggerate. CF became the turning point of the
divide between the Christian East and West. Both sides might have reached the condition
of the actual schism earlier. Particularly, I point to the period immediately after of the
Sack of Constantinople and the establishment of the Latin Empire during the Fourth
Crusade in 1204. Nevertheless, it was CF and its aftermath where Eastern Orthodox
Churches came to the understanding on the real dimensions of the divide between them
and the See of Rome. The events after CF confirmed de jure the existing de facto
realities of the schism.
When I chose to use the CF for my master thesis, I was surprised how little has
been written on this subject. The Pontifical Oriental Institute published the only critical
edition on CF in eleven volumes between 1940 and 1977. No translation of this edition
from Latin to any other languages exists.1 One of its editors, Joseph Gill, wrote The
Council of Florence in 1959. This work remains to be the only book published in English
that covers the entire Council from the beginning. Hence, this master thesis follows the
general chronology of the Council by Gill’s work.2 The data also comes from two papers,
which I wrote while gathering information on CF from Latin and Greek perspectives.
1
The edition is listed at the Publication Department of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome
‘Concilium Florentinum,’ Edizioni Orientalia Christiana, Pontifico Instituto Orientale, accessed
November 4, 2014, http://www.orientaliachristiana.it/other-publications-it.htm.
2
Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 1-452.
vi
Eastern Orthodox theologians and historians have written considerably more
about the Council and the Union it produced than the Western scholars. Yet, the main
data on CF from the Eastern perspective comes from Memoirs (in original,
Απομνημονευματα), written by Sylvester Syropoulos, a megas ecclesiarches (fifth
ecclesiastical office in patriarchal hierarchy) and a deacon at Hagia Sophia.3 Both
Western and Eastern historians take some of his data with the grain of salt. After all,
Syropoulos wrote his Memoirs to justify the reasons why he had signed Laetentur Caeli
and then retracted.4 In his letter to Syropoulos, written after 1450, John Eugenicus, the
brother of Mark Eugenicus and holder of the position of nomophylax in Constantinople’s
Patriarchate, twice mentions “του κατα την Ιταλιαν δεινου πιωμανος” (your terrible fall
in Italy) while still calling him “best and the most honest… dearest…brother.”5
Nevertheless, even if one takes into account significant bias that Syropoulos had on the
subject, his Memoirs unquestionably provide priceless perspective on CF by the Christian
East. This is accentuated by the theory that after the the Fall of Constantinople in 1453,
Syropoulos became the third Patriarch of the Greek Church under the Turkish rule, taking
the name of Sophronius Syropoulos (April 1st 1462-1464).6
3
The Memoirs consist of 12 chapters; the first chapter has been lost. Due to the absence of the
English translation of the Memoirs, all referenced in this MT quotations of Syropoulos are translated from
Russian edition: Сильвестр Сиропул, Воспоминания о Ферраро-Флорентийском Соборе (1438-1439)
в 12 Частях, IV.25 (Санкт-Петербург: Издательство Олега Абышко), 2010.
4
Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), xi-xiii.
5
А.В. Занемонец, Иоанн Евгеник и Православное Сопротивление Флорентийской Унии
(Санкт-Петербург: Алетейя, 2008),58; Nomophylax was the third position in Patriarchal hierarchy; its
holder had the right to come to Emperor’s chambers with reports. Занемонец, Иоанн Евгеник,16.
6
А.В. Занемонец, «Предисловие.» Сильвестр Сиропул, Воспоминания,15. For further
discussion of the possible sources for this identification, see Сильвестр Сиропул\Софроний Сиропул,
“Восходит Солнце над Константинополем,” Life Journal, accessed March 26, 2013, http://byzantium-
ru.livejournal.com/221425.html.
vii
Other Greek polemical literature from the same period survived as well. These
are encyclical and personal letters from various participants of CF as well as their
polemical literature. The most important of these are the writings of Mark Eugenicus and
his brother John. George Scholarius, who signed Laetentur Caeli only to reverse it under
the death bed plea of Mark Eugenicus, became the leader of unti-unionist movement. As
Gennadius II, he became the first Patriarch of Constantinople under the Turkish rule and
cemented the rejection of CF for his ecclesiastical jurisdiction. His letters serve as a
perfect example of the priorities and the set of mind of anti-unionist leaders of
Constantinople.7
Accurate terminology is another challenge in writing on CF. In this work,
West/Latins means Roman Catholic Church; East/Greeks means Eastern Orthodox
Church. Both categories are unsatisfactory and limited. Nevertheless, following others,
they utilized here for convenience and lack of any better option. Unless it proceeds with
“Roman Catholic,” “Eastern Orthodox,” or other, Church with capital “C” refers to the
universal Christian body at the time of CF. I also capitalized other important terms:
Union, Filioque, Roman Catholic\Eastern Orthodox, etc. This rule is not followed in
quotations.
7
Pre and post 1453 letters by Gennadius Scholarus that used for this research available in Russian
translation in А.В. Занемонец, Иоанн Евгеник и Православное Сопротивление Флорентийской Унии
(Санкт-Петербург: Алетейя, 2008),132-152 and A.B. Занемонец, Геннадий Схоларий, Патриарх
Константинопольский, (1454-1456) (Москва: Библейско-Богословский Институт Св. Апостола
Андрея, 2010), 103-149.
viii
CHAPTER 1
THE COUNCIL
On July 6th, 1439, in the great splendor of a Florentine cathedral, both Greek and
Latin delegations proclaimed laud “Placet” with “Αρεσει”to the recitation of the bull of
reunification, Laetentur Caeli.8 The schism between the chalcedonian Christian East and
West was officially terminated. Once more, there was visible Una Sancta: one, holy,
catholic, and apostolic Church.
Yet, for the overwhelming majority of the Eastern Orthodox faithful, this Union
did not survive long after the Council. The official position of the Roman Catholic
Church has not changed: this church still stresses the validity of the Union and places CF
among its most important Councils.9 Eastern Orthodox Churches generally view CF as
the last major attempt to enforce Rome’s own independent theological developments
with, especially, papal authority.10
It is hard to overstate the importance of CF to the history of Christianity. This was
the last and the most substantial attempt to heal the schism between the Christian East
and West.11 In addition, the conciliar movement ended with this council. The
8
For the full description of the ceremony of proclamation, see Gill, The Council, 293-296 and
Сиропул, Воспоминания, X:16, 286.
9
Such importance exists not only due to the Union that CF produced, but also by the defeat of the
conciliar movement that was achieved during the Council.
10
Aristeides Papadakis, The Christian East and the Rise of Papacy: The Church AD 1071-
1453,The Church in History (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994), 397-408.
11
Deno Geanakoplos, “The Council of Florence (1438-1439) and the Problem of Union Between
the Greek and Latin Churches,” Church History 24, no.4 (December 1955): 324.
1
2
Reformation followed the Council in less than one century. Its story should properly start
at CF due to the total defeat of the conciliar movement accompanied with inability by the
Roman Catholic Church to stop the underlying processes burst open with Reformation.
Yet arguably, most Protestants remember it as another obscure council that happened
when Reformation was just around the corner.
Context of the Council: Theological Divide and Time of the Schism
By the time of CF, there had been long period and a general sense of
estrangement between the Christian East and West.12 The schism constituted the
admittance of this estrangement; theological differences played an important, but
secondary role in the split between the East and West. The Greeks and Latins viewed
each other as strangers, not other integral parts of the same Apostolic Church.
Understanding each side’s view on the period or event that constituted the point of final
schism between the Christian East and West is paramount.13
Both Greeks and Latins generally agreed that any dialogue should begin with the
acknowledgement of the history of the profound division between the Christian East and
West. The past often is the answer to the present. The deep historical roots of this great
divide are no exception. Its origins are old indeed. Diocletian’s decision to divide his
12
Yves Congar stated: “ In substance it (the schism) consisted in the acceptance of the situation of
non-rapport…the schism…was the acceptance of the estrangement.” Yves Congar, After Nine Hundred
Years: The Background of the Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches (New York: Fordham
University Press, 1959), 88-89 quoted in Edward Siecienski, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal
Controversy (Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010), 277.
13
It is interesting to note that Syropoulos writes about the discussion among the highest
ecclesiastical circle of the Patriarch of Constantinople (in his presence) during CF in which two
metropolitans sharply criticize Mark Eugenicus for calling Latins “heretics.” Taking into account that this
term was frequently utilized after CF, it is reasonable to assume that there was a major shift the
development of the new view in how Greeks perceived Latins after CF. Сиропул, Воспоминания, IX:10,
249.
3
Empire in two was indeed practical and prudent. In part, his bold move survived through
the ages because it already reflected pre-existed detachment between Greeks and Latins.
As it often said, under the umbrella of the Pax Romana, Rome conquered the Greece by
power; in turn, Greece conquered Rome by its intellect.14 To some degree, the same
paradigm occurred in the development of the Christian doctrine during the first millennia
of Church’s history, including non-chalcedonian Christians. Namely, most of the cardinal
works and processes that defined the development of Christian orthodoxy were written in
Greek. Seven ecumenical councils of the “undivided Church” not only took place in East,
but were driven and formulated by the processes within Greek-formed and expressed
intellectual context. Moreover, there has always been difficulty to reconcile
progressively diverging theological perspectives of Greek East and Latin West. The
linguistic factor played major role in this mutual incomprehension from the beginning
and manifested its unfortunate importance during CF.15
From the beginning of the second century C.E, both Christian East and West were
seeking the solutions to the Trinitarian problem: how to safeguard the unity of the
Godhead in the mystery of its expression through Trinity. St. Augustine’s works and their
unfolding developments in West set the Latin frame of references on Trinitarian doctrine.
14
Horace famously stated: “Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit/ Conquered Greece took captive
her barbarous conqueror.” Quoted by Will Durant, Caesar and Christ: A History of Roman Civilization and
of Christianity from their beginnings to A.D. 325, The Story of Civilization: Part III (New York, NY:
Simon and Schuster, 1944), 95. For more on the same topic, see the same source, p.95- 97. Cato the Elder
and Juvenal expressed the same notions. For example, Juvenal was complaining that he “cannot…stomach
a Greek Rome” in which there is “no room for honest Romans when Rome’s ruled by a junta of Greek-born
secret agents.” Quoted from Juvenal, “Satires,” Lapham’s Quarterly, 8, no.1 (Winter 2015): 136-137.
15
Writing on the issues of Filioque, the head of the Uniat Ukrainian Catholic Church cardinal
Slipyj pointed that as discussing the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit, Latins had only one term
procedere, while Greeks could speak of “in addition to ἐκπορευσθαι, other words besides, such as προιεναι,
προερχεσθαι, χορηγεισθαι, προχεισθαι, ἐκλαμπειν, αναβλυζειν, etc.” Твори Кардинала Йосифа
Верховного Архиєпископа (Opera Omnia Card. Josephi (Slipyj Kobernyckyj-Duckovskij) archepiscopi
maioris) (Rome: Universitas Ucrainorum a S. Clemente Papa, 1968), 1:107-8.
4
The Christian East contemplated on the mystery within the structure, set by the works of
the Cappadocian Fathers. These were and remain to be two different systems of
approaching the mystery of the Trinity and, subsequently, the rest of the theological
framework. The Cappadocians set the understanding of the Trinity for the Christian East
by approaching the Father as the αρχη (origin, beginning, authority) of Son and the Holy
Spirit. Christian West followed the Augustinian model of seeing the Holy Spirit as amor
(love), the unifying bond between the Father and the Son. For sure, these two models co-
existed for more than one millennia in an uneasy tension.16 With the exception of few
fragments, the works of St. Augustine appeared in Greek only around the turn of 14th
century. Hence, the Christian East assumed that there was basic congruence between
Greeks and Latins on Trinitarian doctrine despite this tension. Until CF, both Christian
East and West held the commonly accepted opinion that linguistic factors and mere
different points of theological perspective could explain their differences.17
It is also important to note that each side of the Christendom went through its own
respective major controversies. The Christian West had been battling questions of grace
vr. law, the nature and definition of righteousness, justification, and atonement. Namely,
the discussion on the nature of the Incarnation was -- and largely remains to be in the
West -- central because it is argumented through the logic of the possibility of atonement.
In turn, this predisposes positions on the nature of righteousness and the mode of
justification. Hence, the whole Western theological discourse, including Reformation,
16
Geanakoplos summarizes this divergence as “The Latins, for whom the three persons in the
Godhead were not only of the same substance but of equal attributes, argued that the Holy Spirit emanates
from the son as well as the Father. The Greeks, however, could not accept this, as in their view it would
entail for the Holy Spirit the existence of two archical principles instead of one.” Geanakoplos, “The
Council of Florence,” 331.
17
А.В. Занемонец, Иоанн Евгеник,33.
5
could be seen as disagreements on how to interpret various points within Augustinian
theological heritage.
Alternatively, the Christian East’s battles where held on the doctrinal differences
that found in various liturgical expressions.18 Based on the Cappadocian paradigm of
perceiving Trinity, the Eastern Orthodox dogma of theosis is central to the doctrinal
controversies on the East.19 Liturgy is the primary expression of theosis. It signifies the
downward movement in which through the incarnation, the divine becomes human.
Simultaneously, it is balanced by the progression of the upward movement of the
humanity on its way of becoming divine. Athanasius’ formula of God becoming human
so human can become God is the quintessence of Eastern Orthodox theology and its
liturgical expressions.20
Prior to CF, the unsuccessful effort to find the common ground between the
Greeks and Latins occurred at the Council of Lyon in 1274 C.E.21 Then and at CF, one of
the main challenges was that task of the reconciliation of the primacy of the Roman see
with the eastern doctrine of Pentarchy. Another essential issue was the question of
Filioque: the Western addition to the Nicene Creed. Namely, it asserts that the Holy
Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son. There were also a
18
After all, even its name, Orthodox Church, implies the church that practices ορθο (correct)
δοξία (praise) of God (hence, correct liturgy), not correct belief, as the term orthodox implies in English.
19
I use “dogma” to signify a common and shared by particular tradition belief, while “doctrine” is
interpretation of this belief. Hence, individuals can hold different doctrines and still belong to the same
tradition, while possession of different dogmas places them outside the ecclesiastical community in
question.
20
Papadakis points that the true issue of soteriological differences between the East and West was
not discussed during CF despite the fact that the differences over Filioque is merely one of its
consequences. Paradakis,The Christian East, 398.
Overall, there were around thirty occasions prior CF on which the negotiations for possible
21
reunion were conducted. Geanakoplos, “The Council of Florence,” 324.

6
number of other issues. At times, they were the true fighting points between Latins and
Greeks: the questions of leavened vs. unleavened bread at the Eucharist, the permission
for clergy to shave their beards, etc.
There are few proposed dates for finalization of the schism. The first proposed
date is so-called “Photian schism” of 863-867.22 Nevertheless, the careful analysis reveals
that this short-lived schism was more due to disputes over jurisdictional issues and over
the ecclesiastical control of Bulgaria than any theological divergence. Although Photius
in his work Mystagogia attacked the addition of Filioque, he did not charge the whole
West or even the Rome as following this doctrine.23 At that time, the Christian East and
West were still perceived to be the two parts of the same una sancata catholica et
apostolica.
The most widely accepted date for the schism is 1054, when the Pope’s legate and
the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated one another. The actions and underlying
politics surrounding the clash of Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Michael Cerularius,
anathemas, and mutual excommunication are well known and studied. 24Nevertheless,
their contemporaries and future generations of the faithful have questioned the legality
and efficacy of actions on both sides. After all, Pope Leo IX died by the time when the
22
For more, see Henry Chadwick, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church From
Apostolic Times Until the Council of Florence (Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003), 124-192. For
Eastern Orthodox perspective, see Архимандрит Владимир (Гетте), Папство как Причина Разделения
Церквей ( Москва: ФондИВ, 2007), 173-223.
23
Chadwick, East and West, 154-157; on Photius criticism of Filioque, see Гетте, Папство как
Причина Разделения Церквей, 215-217, including the letter of Pope John VIII to Photius in which he
stipulates the rejection of Filioque and states that Roman Church was misrepresented when the claim was
made of its adherence to the addition to the Creed, 219-220.
24
For example of Western perspective on the Great Schism of 1054, see Chadwick, East and
West, 206-218. For Eastern, Louth, Greek East and Latin West, 305-316.
7
bull of excommunication was brought to Hagia Sophia. Hence, Humbert was no longer
Pope’s legate per se. In addition, Corularius’ excommunication was directed against only
Humbert and his fellow legates, not the whole Roman Church.25 Although the
relationships between Christian East and West continued to deteriorate, both sides viewed
them as temporary difficulties that required some resolution. The lines of communication
between Rome and Constantinople were kept open. There is plenty of evidence of the
liturgical with occasional Eucharistic communion between two sides.26 Just like during
the Photian schism, East and West still viewed each other of parts of the same universal
Church.
Canonically, the formal and final schism between Christian East and West
occurred after the CF. Rome continued to support its “own” Patriarchs of Constantinople
and the rest of the Pentarchy while referring to Eastern Orthodox Christians who rejected
the Union of 1439 C.E as schismatics.
I would argue that for the Christian East the line of separation between the Latins
and Greeks was de facto drawn two centuries earlier. It occurred when the crusaders
sacked Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204.27 Fires consumed two thirds of
Constantinople. The “holy” crusaders committed murder, rape, and pillage of the
churches. The treasures of Hagia Sophia were carried out of cathedral on mules, which
reportedly were leaving their excrements in the Great Church, while “a prostitute was
25
Chadwick, East and West, 212.
26
Chadwick, East and West, 219-232.
27
Guettee writes that these events demonstrated that the schism became “established fact” while
previous problematic interactions between Christian East and West were held as “protest of the Eastern
Church against Roman innovations.” Гетте, Папство, 237.
8
placed on the synthronon of the great cathedral to amuse the looters.”28 The crusaders
were smashing gold and silver consecrated items to pieces and melting them. This was
the destiny of the highest altar of the Hagia Sophia.
The greatest sacred item of Constantinople was forever lost somewhere in the
middle of the pillage. The icon of the Virgin Mary survived the iconoclasts, but not
crusaders. According to tradition, St. Luke painted this icon. Allegedly, the Shroud of
Turin, the relic bones of St. Simeon, St. Helena, Dionysius Areopagiticus and others were
taken and found permanent place in the various splendid cathedrals of the Christian West.
The Greek Patriarch had to flee to the other side of Bosporus. The new Latin Patriarch of
Constantinople took his throne. Hagia Sophia joined other churches in the list of robbed;
monks were imprisoned; Latin rite became mandatory in all churches.29
It is impossible to overstate the impact of the events of 1204 on the preparation,
proceedings, and reception of CF in Christian East. Greek writings of that time are full of
references to the grave acts of 1204. The debates on Filioque serve as a prime example.
In the aftermath of the Sack of Constantinople, the Greeks were forced to add and use
Filioque during the liturgies. Hence, at CF, the Greeks “seemed most to have feared…not
merely alternation of Orthodox dogma, but…loss of national identity, in other words
Latinizaton of the Greek people.”30
28
Papadakis, The Christian East, 201.
29
For more, see Papadakis, The Christian East, 199-227.
30
Geanakoplos, “The Council of Florence,”332.
9
The Sack of Constantinople was the context through which Christian East viewed
the West before and immediately after CF.31 When one reads literature on CF, it is hard to
escape the impression that events which occurred two centuries prior to CF were viewed
by Greeks as happening yesterday. The brutal Latinization of Constantinople that lasted
almost 50 years brought centuries of cultural and mass rejection by Greeks of anything
that has to do with Rome.32 Even Scholarious was accused of being a traitor merely
because he spoke Latin. 33 Church hierarchies might have produced the
excommunications of each other in 1054, but for the Greek masses, the realization of de
facto separation came as the result of the Fourth Crusade in 1204.34
Nevertheless, the Greeks could point to their significant attempts to heal the
schism despite this overwhelming historical burden. In 1334, the patriarch of
Constantinople selected Barlaam of Calabria to represent the position of the Greeks in
dialogue with Dominican bishops in preparation for possible action of seeking solution
for the divide.35 Barlaam prepared the draft, based upon the decisions of synod of
Constantinople and brought it to the Pope Benedict XII into Avignon. The proposal
31
For example, Syropoulos in his Memoirs describes in clearly painful and emotional account the
visit of Patriarch Joseph II and his escort (including the author) of Venetian St. Mark’s Basilica where they
were shown the famous Pala d’Oro. Syropoulus writes (translation from Russian is mine): “All who view
this -- composited out of many -- icon, all who own it, this is [the opportunity to view Pala d’Oros] the
source of joy, honor, and visual pleasure; for all, who lost it (if they happen to be there), this is the source
of dishonor, sorrow and shame: this is what happened to us.” Сиропул, Воспоминания, IV.25, 98-99.
32
For the brief description, see Гетте, Папство, 229-235; he also states that “ during this almost
half-century period, the hatred between Greeks and Latins reached horrifying heights.” Гетте, Папство,
234.
33
In his defense, Scholarious pointed that “almost everybody in Constantinople spoke Turkish; did
it make the Byzantines friends of Mohammedanism?” Sevcenko, “Intellectual Repercussions,” 291.
34
Sherrard, The Greek East,100.
35
Chadwick, East and West, 253-254.
10
included the elimination of the discussion on Trinitarian issues during the wished-for
ecumenical council. The Greeks viewed the necessity for calling such a council as a non-
negotiable condition for any prospect of the Union. For the Christian East, the authority
of the true ecumenical council is required to amend the dogmas and doctrines of the faith.
Keeping silence on the Filioque during such council would allow both East and West to
keep the existing status quo on the matter until better times. This did not stand well with
the Pope. Benedict XII rejected the offer, instructing that the Greeks should simply
stipulate what the papal authority already decided to be “correct” belief, followed by the
Roman Church.36 It is worth quoting a passage from Barlaam’s address to the Pope as
indicative of the underlying issue that led to the demise of the Union, produced a hundred
years later by CF: “That which separates the Greeks from you is not so much a difference
in dogma as the hatred of the Greeks for the Latins provoked by the wrongs they have
suffered.”37
When this attempt failed, Byzantium Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos picked up
the mandate to find the common ground with the Western Church. Upon his descend to
the Byzantium throne in 1343, Kantakouzenos opened direct negotiations with Pope
Clement VI. Keeping the Christian East’s insistence that only ecumenical council will
have adequate authority to resolve their differences and breach the schism, he proposed
that such council be held, naturally, in Constantinople.38 If needed, it could take place on
Rhodes. This island was under the control of Latins, but close to the Byzantium
36
Papadakis, The Christian East, 381-382.
37
Geanakoplos, “The Council of Florence,” 327.
38
The idea to have the unifying council in Constantinople was not viewed favorably in Rome.
Syropoulos quotes one response to such proposal: “Church of Rome is mother while Eastern [Church] is
the daughter; consequently, daughter should be the one who comes to her mother.” Сиропул,
Воспоминания, II:12, 30.
11
mainland. In contrast with Barlaam, Kantakouzenos wanted the council to engage in
comprehensive theological discussion on the doctrinal differences between the Greeks
and Latins. Kantakouzenos expressed willingness to sign any decision that the
ecumenical council would reach. After unsuccessfully dealing for a few years with
Clement VI’s legates, the negotiations reached the dead end with this Pope’s death. His
successor, Innocent VI, sent to the Emperor letter. The newly elected Pope expressed his
delight and joy that the Greeks finally decided to reject their false doctrines.
Understandably, it was the conclusion of this chapter of negotiations.
After retiring to a monastery and leaving his throne, Kantakouzenos once again
channeled his energy to the task of the reaching the union. In 1367, he held conferences
with Paul of Smyrna, the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople. Kantakouzenos’ proposal
was almost identical to the main line he suggested to the Pope Clement V. In addition to
the need for the authority of the ecumenical council to breach the schism and open
theological discussion on such forum, Kantakouzenos proposed that it should be attended
not only by the representatives of the Pentarchy, but by the major bishops and
archbishops of both Christian West and East. Particularly, he mentioned metropolitans of
Rus’, Trapezund, Alania, and Czech Moravia as well as catholicos of Georgia, the
Bulgarian patriarch, and the archbishop of Serbia. This signified the slowly developing
awareness of the ecclesiastical powers in Constantinople that the weight of the Christian
East has been gradually shifting to the nations outside of the borders of Byzantium.
Kantakouzenos and Paul of Smyrna reached the agreement that also received inducement
of the Patriarch Philotheus I. Yet, Urban V rejected the proposal. The Pope persisted that
12
there was only one way to eliminate the divide between the Latins and Greeks:
unconditional obedience to the see of Rome.39
The Great Western Schism of 1378-1417 put most of the negotiations on hold.
The Council of Constance (1414-1418) restored the unity of the Western Church and
brought the conciliar movement to the heights of its power. New realities and
developments in the West brought new hopes and possibilities to the East. After all, the
conciliar movement and the Greeks had much in common in respect to ecclesiastical
polity. Unlike his predecessors, Martin V could not demand that Greeks simply submit to
the see of Rome. After all, from now on the Pope had to follow the decisions and
directions of the councils in the questions of faith. Martin V’s election was conditioned
on agreement with Council of Constance’s Sacrosancta, which prescribed frequent
general councils and their superiority over Pope. Hence, the negotiations between
Christian East and West began again. Greeks’ proposals were the same as expressed by
Kantakouzenos before. Although Greeks demanded financial securities for the council
from Latin side, they understood that this creates dependence and could be used as a tool
for force their cooperation.40 They also proposed that if the ecumenical council were to
take place on territory controlled by the Latins, it should be near the sea. This would
insure the quick and safe passage home for the Greeks if the negotiations were not
successful.41 It appears that this issue was very important to the Greeks and might be one
of the decisive factors why they chose to come to the council of Eugene IV in Ferrara, not
39
40
Сиропул, Воспоминания, II:19; 34.
41
Сиропул, Воспоминания, II:40, 51; II:45, 55; II:46, 57.
13
the rival in Basel.42 Nevertheless, financial issues played a big role during the council.
Syropoulos’ Memoirs are full of complains about the miserable conditions and the lack of
adequate provision that most Greeks suffered at Ferrara and Florence.43 Other Eastern
Orthodox repeat Syropoulos’ charges.44
At the end, the conciliar movement made it possible for the Christian West to
meet all preconditions that the Christian East has been asking for centuries.45 Certainly,
Greeks had plenty of reasons to complain, but they had to admit that the necessary
conditions for the council to be truly ecumenical were met: it was held according to the
doctrine of Pentarchy and Byzantium Emperor was present. 46 Just like his predecessor
Martin V, Eugene IV agreed to hold open discussions on the theological issues that
produced the divide. That was the only way for the preservation of the sound doctrine and
solution for the division.47 It is also clear that Greek theologians and ecclesiastical
authorities viewed CF as the real opportunity to achieve unity and eliminate the schism
between Christian East and West. On the official opening of the Council, the soon-to-be
opponent-in-chief of the Union Mark Eugenicus spoke to the Pope: “Today is the
beginnings of universal joy. Today the members of the Body of Christ that were divided
42
43
For example, Сиропул, Воспоминания, IV:42, 113; V:5, 122; V:18, 130; V:21, 132; V:22, 133;
V:37,143; VI:2:145; VI:32, 171; VIII:16-17, 220-221; IX: 5, 243; X:25, 296.
44
Гетте, Папство, 242.
45
Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453 (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press, 2002), 352.; Papadakis, The Christian East, 387.
46
For more, see next subchapter.
47
Сиропул, Воспоминания, II:8, 27-28.
14
and cut off from each other for centuries, seek mutual unity.”48 It would not take long
time for these high hopes to be crushed.
Preparations for the Council
Officially, the council started on December 14th 1431 at Basel. The Pope did not
have much choice on the matter: the Council was set forth by the decree of his
predecessor, Martin V.49 In order to safeguard the principle of the supremacy of the
general council over the bishop of Rome, the aforementioned Council of Constance
decreed the provision for the perpetual nature of frequently held councils. Nevertheless,
Pope Eugene IV tried to dissolve the Council of Basel just after four days from its
beginning. When his attempt failed, the Pope called for the council to meet at Ferrara and
invited the bishops from Basel to attend. In turn, they refused to comply. The bishops
insisted that the ultimate authority of the Roman Catholic Church is theirs, not the
Pope’s. In addition to quarreling with the bishops Basel, Eugene IV accelerated the
arrangements with the Eastern Church. Both Christian East and the Pope would be
beneficiaries of the Union. The Greeks were seeking military help from the West due to
the imminent threat of the Ottoman Turks invasion; Eugene IV saw such Union as means
to strengthen his role and rule in both West and East.50
It would not be correct to state that the Christian East concluded to seek the idea
of the new ecumenical council for mere political reasons. Obviously, the Turkish threat
48
А.В. Занемонец, Иоанн Евгеник, 35.
49
On Martin V and his preparations for the council, see Gill, The Council, 16-45.
50
As Gill states: “…union was what Byzantium most needed and Rome most desired.” Gill, The
Council, 13.
15
was real.51 Nevertheless, it was not the decisive factor. As previously noted, the
ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Christian East had been seeking a way to restore unity for a
long time. Sometimes they considered the possibility of the new ecumenical council and
ecclesiastical solution to the divide between Christian East and West in contrast with
political schemes of their Emperors. The rulers of Byzantium frequently were willing to
submit to the spiritual supremacy of the see of Rome without theological preconditions.52
As one contemporary Eastern Orthodox scholar noted, “the enthusiasm of the Emperors
for union fluctuated in accordance with the need for Western aid.”53
From Eastern perspective, any ecumenical council must have certain elements and
preconditions. The system of Pentarchy viewed the Christian Church as one visible body,
ruled by five Patriarchs with a see each in of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch,
and Jerusalem. The Pentarchian structure was set in 4th Century with subsequent minor
modifications. By the time of CF, the patriarchates of Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch
lost their influence and were on the edge of extinction due to the Islamic factor.
Nevertheless, each Patriarch or his representative had to attend and grant the approval to
the final decision of each Ecumenical Council. This way, the result was binding for the
universal Church. For this reason, the schism with Rome prevented the Christian East
from holding an Ecumenical Council.
51
52
For example, this was the politics of Michael Paleologus, who ascended to the throne of
Constantinople in 1261. Two years later during negotiations with Pope Urban IV he agreed to concede any
requested by Rome theological and ecclesiastical ruling. Nevertheless, the Pope (and his successor Clement
IV) soon found that the emperor could not deliver on his promises and force ecclesiastical authorities of
Byzantium to accept such ruling. Chadwick, East and West, 226.
53
16
There was another prerequisite for an ecumenical council for the Christian East:
the Roman Emperor had to be the one who issued the formal call to gather bishops and
Patriarchs.54 His person served as the symbol of religious and governmental unity of the
Christian World. The Eastern Orthodox Church calls this concept symphonia; it is also
known as caesaropapism. Moreover, for the Greeks at the time of CF, the Byzantine
Empire and its capital of Constantinople, was still synonymous with the Roman Empire.
Constantinople was “just” a new Rome. Even when the Byzantine Empire consisted of
the city of Constantinople itself, the ideological framework of imperial thinking and
perception remained to be the same.55 When Turkish Sultan was knocking on the doors of
the Constantinople, the Greeks insisted that de jure the Byzantine Empire still consisted
of Italy, Spain, North Africa, Anatolia, Syria and Palestine.56 In this worldview, “Old
Rome” held special place as the origin and the first capital of the Empire. Byzantines
never called themselves by that term (“byzantines”). They were true “Romans” who
meticulously paid attention that all the attributes of Roman society and system of
government. The fact that not many of them could still master Latin had little to do with
the strict adherence to the Roman heritage. Hence, they insisted that the Byzantine
Emperor was the only legitimate power who held the authority to call the ecumenical
council.
Another issue required solution before the Ecumenical Council began. Who
would represent the West: the bishops at Basel or the Pope’s council at Ferrara? As it
54
Сиропул, Воспоминания, II:8, 28.
55
On the decay of the city, see testimony of Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo from 1403 and Pero Tafur in
a decade or two after in John Julius Norwich, Byzantium: The Decline and Fall (London: The Folio
Society, 2005), 408-409.
56
Norwich, Byzantium: The Decline, 420.
17
turned out, both sides started a competition by sending their representatives to the
Patriarch of Constantinople Joseph II and Byzantine Emperor John VII Palaiologos.57 At
times, these representatives met in Constantinople and had “to be restrained from blows
only by imperial intervention.”58Although Joseph II took Basel’s proposition seriously, he
made a condition of the East’s participation: the East would participle only if Eugene IV
would be present at the Council. It was not just mere politics. For Joseph II and the rest
of the eastern patriarchs, the doctrine of Pentarchy demanded that the Pope, not just its
bishops, represent the West. Hence, curiously enough, the Council at Basel has lost the
competition with Eugene IV based on ecclesiastical doctrine that the Pope himself did not
view as theologically valid.
As mentioned earlier, geographical factors played a role as well. Although the
Greeks protested against going to Ferrara, Basel was even further into the continent. In
addition, Basel had issues raising funds for the Council. Although it had established a
channel to raise a substantial sum through the sale of indulgences, the French king
proposed Avignon as the site of the Council between East and West and used his power
to stop the flow of money to Basel. At the end, after the proclamation of the Union at
Ferrara-Florence, Eugene IV had enough authority and real power to put the deathblow to
the consiliarism of Basel. He dissolved Basel’s council not just by decrees and
excommunications, but also by bringing the practical and physical end to the rival
council.
Ferrara and Florence

57
For detailed description of the Council of Basel to win the Greeks support of holding the
ecumenical council with them, see Gill, The Council, 46-84.
58
18
Early in 1438, the Eastern delegation started its prolonged journey from
Constantinople to Ferrara. Around 700 members of the delegations sailed north, making
frequent stops on the Dalmatian coast to the Adriatic due to the number of storms and
poor health of the Patriarch. Prior to the journey and after prolonged and complicated
negotiations, Eugene IV agreed to pay all expenses for the travel. The Greeks made this
one of the primary preconditions for the participation in the Council. The Emperor John
VII Palaiologos and Patriarch of Constantinople Joseph II led the delegation. The
Patriarch counted among his escort over 30 metropolitans, including those who
represented – as legates – patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. Among
other representatives came delegations from Georgia, Wallachia, the newly installed
metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus’ Isidore with his delegation, bishop of Ephesus Mark
Eugenicus, metropolitan of Nicaea Bessarion, the Great Chartophylas Michael Balsamon,
the Great Skevophylax Theodore Xanthopoulus, and philosopher, theologian, and scholar
George Scholarious. Leading members of the delegation (Isidore, Mark Eugenicus, and
Bessarion) were ordained during preparations for the Council so the East would have
solid intellectual representation. As one scholar observes, at FC “Western intellectuals
met with the greatest Greek scholarly and theological delegation that ever came to Latin
soil.”59
After prolonged and complicated journey, the delegation arrived at Venice on
February 8th 1438. A splendid reception was waiting them, led by the Doge himself. The
greeting had positively surprised Greeks, although the cultural and commercial
59
Igor Sevcenko, “Intellectual Repercussions of the Council of Florence,” Church History 24,
no.4 (December 1955): 291.
19
connection between Constantinople and Venice was flourishing for some time. By
beginning of 15th century, Venice had become a truly hospitable place for many Greeks
who were fleeing the Islamic threat or general domestic decay. Here they received a
warm reception and many eager pupils who desired to obtain their classical knowledge
and, especially, their valuable manuscripts. The era of humanistic thirst for classical
knowledge was at its peak.60
Hence, when the delegation reached Venice, there was no shortage of excited
attention and respectful reception. Consequently, the Greeks stayed there for about one
month and arrived to Ferrara on March 4th. Nevertheless, there was a darker side of this
warm reception: in the Venetian churches the Greeks saw many stolen sacred artifacts,
the bleak heritage of the Fourth Crusade.61 At Ferrara, the Patriarch proclaimed that the
Council proceeding should take place at St. George Cathedral; in so doing, he formally
laid to rest any doubts about whether Basel was still a player in the discussion. In
addition, Joseph II announced his wishes that Basel’s participants come to Ferrara and
accept the leadership of the Pope.
Both sides were aware of the Council’s agenda for discussions. Understandably,
debates on Filioque were on the top list. Both Greeks and Latins expressed their
expectation of easily won victory; these anticipations recorded in various memoirs and
correspondence of the participants of the Council. The Greeks, especially Mark
60
Scholarios even “though of expatriating himself from Constantinople – where, so he claimed,
intellectuals were despised – perhaps to Italy, where they were recognized and enjoyed social prestige.”
Sevcenko, “Intellectual Repercussions,” 292.
61
See footnote 13 and Siecienski, The Filioque, 151.
20
Eugenicus, viewed Filioque as the root and the main point of disagreement between the
Christian East and West.
More nuanced discussions were predicated on the precise moment of consecration
at the Eucharist: whether it is occurs during the proclamation of Words of Institution
(Western perspective), or at the Epiklesis (Eastern view). Mentioned above questions of
leavened vs. unleavened bread in the Eucharist, Purgatory, and the role of the see of
Rome were on the agenda as well. The last item was the most important for Eugene IV,
especially taking into account recent and prolonged complications in the area of defining
the papal power in the West.
Nevertheless, upon the arrival, John VIII Palaiologos insisted on the
postponement of all discussions. The Emperor waited for the representatives of the
secular Western European powers to come to Ferrara. John VIII Palaiologos was more
than well-educated and fluent in theological issues; he was serious in the matters of the
Faith. Nevertheless, the Byzantine Emperor had to seek the Union in order to receive
military assistance to stop final and without any questions eminent attack by the Ottoman
Turk forces on Constantinople. Things did not turn out the way the Emperor hoped.
Despite all negotiations, inquires, and pressure from John VIII Palaiologos and Eugene
IV, secular representatives did not come to the Council. Among the secular powers that
supported the cause the strongest was England. Nevertheless, this kingdom could not
translate its willingness into real actions due to the internal struggles and late stages of
the Hundred Years’ War.

21
To add to the lack of enthusiasm from Western secular powers, very soon the
Greeks started experiencing financial hardships. There have been perpetual delays in
deliverance of the promised finances from the Pope to insure the proper functioning of
the Greek delegation. When Eastern orthodox commentators tied these issues with the
lack of positive cooperation from the Greeks, the Westerners pointed that the Pope
simply did not have any available funds due to the hostile military actions in Italy and
Basel’s intrusion into Western Church’s monetary flow to Rome. Finally, these financial
struggles forced the Pope to transfer the council to Florence in January 1439. Eugene IV
made such proposition on January 6th and based it on the plague “that still lingered on and
threatened to revive in all its virulence with the return of the spring.” 62 In addition,
Florence– led by its wealth and the peak of humanistic interest in classical learning --
offered financial guarantees and enthusiastically embraced the Council and the Greeks.
Just like Venice, Florence positively shocked Easterners with splendid reception and
attention to their knowledge. One of the members of the Eastern delegation, Platonist
Gemiston Plethon (as some commentators state, he was more Platonist than Christian)
spent most of his time with countless Florentine pupils who looked at him as a breathing
classical philosopher of so much esteemed past. Nevertheless, around this time John VIII
Palaiologos started understanding that obtaining military assistance would not be as easy
as he first thought: the anticipated union – which neither side doubted would be achieved
by the Council – would not automatically translate into western troops guarding
Constantinople.
62
Gill, The Council of Florence, 178.
22
The Western delegation at the Council was well prepared and full of men of high
learning. Cardinal Julian Cesarini led it. In debates, three Dominicans often represented
the West: Greek-born archbishop of Rhodes Andrew Chrysoberges; Giovanni di
Montenero, archbishop of Lombardy; and Spaniard John of Torquemada. Another
prominent member of the Western delegation at CF was general of the Camaldolese order
Ambrogio Traversari, a prominent theologian of his day, and fluent in Greek.
After the debates begun, it became evident that the main challenge consisted in
the underlying methodological differences between the Greeks and Latins. Roman
Catholic theologians, taught in the tradition of the Latin medieval scholasticism,
evaluated each question or issue through a philosophical and dialectic prism. By this
time, due to the constant flow of teachers, manuscripts, and knowledge from dying
Byzantium, they also became well versed in Eastern patristic thought. This left the
Greeks, who primarily relied on their patristic heritage, at serious disadvantage.63 In
addition, the Latins presented one unified front. The Greek delegation had splits and
hostile factions.
Plethon counted both Mark Eugenicus and Bessarion among his pupils. Yet,
Nicaea’s metropolitan – unlike his Ephesian counterpart – showed remarkable dedication
the task of safeguarding the classical Greek tradition. Bessarion probably understood that
the days of the Byzantine Empire were numbered and that these traditions would not
survive under the coming Islamic rule. Hence, the Eastern commentator frequently point
that he was more likely to agree to the theological and ecclesiastical compromise in order
to save this heritage. Nevertheless, the available evidence suggests that Bessarion
63
For an illustration and some analysis, see Gill, The Council, 227-228.
23
defended the Eastern orthodox views sincerely and wholeheartedly.64 The change in
theological position, explained later in his own writing, came from realizing the
correctness of the Western theology on the question of Filioque. Moreover, this shift
came not as the result of syllogisms and the logic of Latin argumentation, but through
clear patristic evidence produced by the Westerners that supported the Roman Catholic
position.65 During the Council, Bessarion found a kindred spirit in Traversari. Two men
developed shared theological perspective and, ultimately, a close friendship. The
archbishop of Nicaea came to the Council with substantial library of manuscripts. It
included works of Basil the Great that ultimately convinced the Greeks to settle on the
formula of Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son, equating “through”
with “from.” Both sides at the Council generally received Bessarion’s speeches well.
Mark Eugenicus constituted the notable exception.
At the end, it was Bessarion with Isidore, leading the Greeks into accepting the
union. Later, they both became cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church. In addition, the
Greeks viewed Mark Eugenicus with skepticism by Greeks due to his explosive, harsh
character and adopted hesychastic theology of Gregory Palamas. It is interesting that a
number of western historians name Mark Eugenicus as the sole reason for the short
demise of the achieved union.66 Although he was the only easterner who refused to sign
the Union, upon the return to Constantinople Mark became the leader of those who
refused to accept the decrees of the Ecumenical Council.
64
Siecienski, The Filioque,152.
65
Siecienski, The Filioque, 162.
66
For example, Gill writes: “If some one cause is to be assigned for the failure of the Council of
Florence, that cause was Mark Eugenicus, metropolitan of Ephesus.” Gill, Personalities, 64.
24
The Council had a difficult start. John VIII Palaiologos continued requesting
postponement after postponement of the debates, waiting for the representatives of the
secular powers, which never arrived.67 In addition, there were a number of issues
regarding proper protocol. The Greek delegation continuously protested the arrangements
that looked only natural for the Latins. John VIII Palaiologos could not accept that
Eugene IV’s throne was higher than his; the Emperor was not allowed to come to Pope’s
chambers on the horse; there were disputes over who should kiss whose hand, etc. The
Latins compromised as much as they could.68 For example, on the question of who (Pope
or the Emperor) has the authority to inaugurate the council, it was determined that
Eugene IV would open it, but with the sanction of John VIII Palaiologos. Although it was
the Western custom that everyone should kiss – even kings conceded – the Pope’s foot,
the Greeks where ultimately permitted not to comply.69
Finally, in May 1439, two committees were formed, each counting ten individuals
from both sides. These committees started working on the doctrine of Purgatory. There
were other – thirteen in total—sessions, lasting from October 8th to December 13th on the
question of Filioque. During these debates, Mark Eugenicus was leading representative
of the Greek side, while Andrew of Rhodes and Cardinal Cesarini led the Latins. The
basis for the common ground between the East and West lay in the axiom “that the saints
of antiquity were sound and correct in their faith.” 70 Hence, both sides agreed that the
67
Gill, The Council, 113.
68
Gill, The Council, 105-107.
69
For importance of these “trifles,” see Sevcenko, “Intellectual Repercussions,” 295. Also,
70
Henry Chadwick, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church From Apostolic Times
Until the Council of Florence (Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003), 267.
25
solution to their differences would be found in patristic heritage. The task of determining
who was wright or wrong at Florence was condensed to the mission of finding whether
the Greeks or Latins represented the beliefs of the saints correctly.
After preliminary work, on January 10th, the council had the first full session at St.
George cathedral where the Bull of Inauguration was read in both Latin and Greek. After
the move to Florence, the council’s sessions lasted from March 2nd to August 26th 1439.
The debates on question of Filioque lasted first eight sessions from March 2 to March
22nd. Both sides exchanged intense arguments with appeals to the patristic evidence.
Through careful maneuvering and use of better manuscripts, the Latins appeared to get an
upper hand. Meanwhile, the proceeding were somewhat rushed due to the rumors that the
Turks were preparing to siege of Constantinople.
From March 24th to March 27th there were no open sessions. The Greeks lost the
debates, but were not ready to admit so.71 Even before, it was clear that they could contest
the Latins in debates regarding wording, but not the doctrinal issues. After prolonged
negotiations, patriarch Joseph II agreed to sign the decree of the Union.72 His health was
rapidly declining and the patriarch took no serious role in these negotiations, increasingly
led from the Greek side by the Emperor.73 Nevertheless, no one contests that Joseph II
viewed the necessity of the Union in in the task of saving Constantinople and was
For further analysis, see Gill, The Council, 223-226.

71
Gill, The Council, 264. Syrolpoulus testifies about Patriarch’s willingness to sign the Degree
72
few days before his death. Сиропул, Воспоминания, IX:38, 267.
73
Сиропул, Воспоминания, IX, 247-267.
26
determined to see it pull through.74 The Patriarch died on June 10th and after a grand
ceremony was buried at Santa Maria Novella.75
Meanwhile, the Council’s proceedings continued. The next six weeks were
dedicated to a number of questions: the role of the Pope, Purgatory, and various
Eucharistic dilemmas. Curiously, these topics were not as rigorously debated as the
negotiations over whether Eugene IV or John VIII Palaiologos name would appear first
on the final decree of the Council.76 The Pope won this argument. Finally, on July 6, 1439
cardinal Cesarini and metropolitan Bessarion proclaimed the Union in Greek and Latin
with stipulations, spelled out in the decree by the name Laetentur Caeli.
Conclusion with Greeks
Almost all Byzantine delegation signed the final degree of the Council in a
voluntary manner. The solemn proclamation of the Laetentur Caeli preceded the
celebration of the Pontifical Mass. The Greeks attended, but chose not participate in the
Eucharist fully.77 John VIII Palaiologos expressed desire to celebrate the orthodox liturgy
after the Mass as well. The Latins enthusiastically agreed. Nevertheless, it was found that
Roman Catholics “had no idea of what an eastern liturgy consisted of, and an explanation
by Isidore and Bessarion did not much enlighten them.” 78 Therefore, Latins requested
that a small private liturgy be done, so they could learn how to participate in it. At this
74
Сиропул, Воспоминания, IX:34, 268.
75
76
Gill, The Council, 288 and especially Сиропул, Воспоминания, X:4, 271-272.
77
Gill states that “Philanthropinus carried the water and towel for the washing of the Pope’s hands
at the beginning, one of the Russian priests in Isidore’s suit did the same after the Offertory, and George
Dishypatus was the bearer at the end,” The Council, 293-294.
78
27
point John VIII Palaiologos decided that he had enough of the confusion and stopped the
initiative.
Both the Greeks and Latins briefly contemplated what to do with Mark
Eugenicus’ refusal to sign the decree. The Emperor insisted on postponing any decision
until the delegation reaches Constantinople. There, the Emperor hoped to persuade Mark
or silence him. Apparently, John VIII Palaiologos not only gave his word not to use his
secular power to “convince” objectors, but kept it as well. In addition, he insisted that
elections of the new patriarch of Constantinople should occur at his see, not in the West,
despite the Pope’s proposition to proceed at Florence.
There was another issue about which the Greeks petitioned the Pope. The
question of double ecclesiastical jurisdiction worried them. The Emperor proposed that
those Roman Catholics who currently resided in and had ecclesiastical structure among
predominately Eastern orthodox population should withdraw their bishops from such
territories, thus allowing the faithful to be under the jurisdiction and pastoral care of the
orthodox episcopal authorities. This was not acceptable to the Pope. He offered another
compromise: in the territories that share both Greek and Latin bishops, nothing should be
changed until one of the bishops dies. At that time, the one who had outlived the other
would assume the jurisdiction over all Christians in both dioceses. At such point, there
would be one diocese that followed the rite of the surviving bishop. Hence, in a
generation, there would be uniformity, double jurisdiction – which was forbidden by the
apostolic tradition – would end.

28
Eugene IV immediately started sending copies of Council’s decree through all
European states and regions. There is plenty of evidence that the news of the Union
received great welcome and celebrations throughout the continent.79 The Greeks received
lavish gifts, pensions, and promised payments.
The ships were prepared and most of the Greeks soon left for Constantinople. Yet,
even before they left, there was general anxiety due to dawning understanding that the
proclaimed Union did not erase the real divide. The anecdote survived that when Eugene
IV was told that Mark Eugenicus refused to sign the decree, the Pope stated: “Then we
achieved nothing.” As another anecdote has it, even John VIII Palaiologos’s dog howled
from Emperor’s seat during the signing ceremony.80 However, the evidence is clear that
the overwhelming majority of the Greeks were leaving Florence with the strong
conviction of reality and sustainability of the Union. Clearly, their liturgical life
demonstrated such conviction.81 It was not some type of written or oral declaration
evidenced the union of any ecclesiastical bodies at that time. The real evidence came in
the participation in each other’s liturgical life. Hence, there is only one possible
conclusion to the Council: it achieved the Union.
Armenians, Copts, Chaldeans, and Maronites
79
For example, Henry VI of England ordered processions and celebrations throughout his
kingdom. Pietro del Monte described that “all the clergy and the people went in procession to the churches”
together with “great manifestations, besides, of joy and gladness” Gill, The Council, 299.
80
81
For examples of liturgical co-celebration of the Greek delegation on the way to Constantinople,
see Gill, The Council, 302-303.
29
The Greeks were not the only ones with whom Rome attempted to bridge the
Union. Eugene IV and his predecessors had wider agenda, which included the prospect of
healing the schism with Oriental Orthodox Churches that recognized only first three
ecumenical councils. Since the Council of Chalcedon, they stayed in formal separation
from both ecclesiastical Rome and Constantinople. 82 Even before the Greek delegation
left, the Armenians arrived at Florence. Negotiations with them through Genoese colony
at Caffa (now Foedosia, Ukraine) begun in 1434.Although not much known about the
negotiations, the general mood of Arminian delegation is evident by the address to the
Pope that worth quoting in its entirety:
You hold the See of Christ. You are Vicar of Christ in the See of the
Apostles. We have come to you, our head. We have come to our shepherd.
You are the foundation of the Church. Every member that has left you is
sick, and wild bests have devoured the flock that has separated itself from
you. Churches that have not followed you or been upheld by you have
been utterly overthrown. You, the head, be compassionate to the members.
You, the shepherd, gather the flock. You, the foundation, confirm the
Churches. You, who have the power of the heavenly keys, open to us the
gates of eternal life.83
The Armenians held almost daily conferences with Eugene IV. Finally, on
November 22nd 1439, the Decretum pro Armenis was solemnly proclaimed at Santa
Maria Novella, announcing the Union between the see of Rome and the Armenian
Patriarchate.
Taking into account the prolonged and complicated doctrinal difficulties between
the Armenians and the rest of the Christendom, Decretum pro Armenis was an extensive
82
For short overview of the history of this schism in the context of the Union with the see of
Rome, see Nichols, Rome, 84-103.
83
Hoffman, Orientalium doc. Min. doc. 35, quoted in Gill, The Council, 306.
30
decree. It had Nicene-Constantinople Creed with Filioque; the Caledonian Definition
(due to the monophysite beliefs ascribed to the Armenian Apostolic Church ); definitions
of subsequent ecumenical councils in which the Armenians did not participate; so-called
Athanasian Creed; issues of the ecclesial calendar. After the proclamation of the Bull,
Eugene IV sent letters against abuses of Armenians at the territories, controlled by
political powers who happened to be Roman Catholics. In addition, the Pope instructed to
stop “re-baptising any, whether Greek, Slav or Armenian, who had already been
baptized.”84 Nevertheless, there was a significant distinction between the union that
Rome achieved with Armenians and Greeks: in contrast with the arrangement to end the
double episcopal jurisdiction with Greeks, the Pope allowed the Armenians to keep their
own bishops.85 Although I found no explanation for such deferring position, my guess it
was due to significant abuses of Armenian communities among Genoan and Venetians
colonies, as well as their difficult status in Lviv. This is consistent with future policies of
the holders of the see of Rome to strengthen Uniats who were facing pressure or – at
times – open persecution from the “proper” Roman Catholics of Latin rite. Although a
majority of the Armenians rejected the Union, a substantial part remained faithful to the
see of Rome. After prolonged and complicated historical developments, they became the
sui juris (self-governing) Armenian Catholic Church in full communion with the Rome,
counting around 700 thousands faithful around the globe.
Around the same time when the Armenians arrived at Florence, Eugene IV sent
Alberto da Sarteano to the Copts and the Ethiopians. For this mission, the Pope appointed
84
85
I attempted to find the explanation by asking the question to few clergymen (women are not
ordained in this ecclesial body) of the Armenian Apostolic Church, but received no data except
denunciation of these Uniats.
31
Sarteano to the status of the apostolic nuncio. Both Copts and Ethiopians were
monophysites. Although the Ethiopians were still self-governed by a Christian Emperor,
the Egyptian sultan blocked any access to Ethiopia in fear of political alliance between
them and the Christian West. Sarteano and his delegation of the Franciscans left Italy in
1440 and arrived to Jerusalem in June of the same year. Here they met the abbot of the
Ethiopian monastery in Jerusalem by the name of Nicodemus. The abbot decided to send
a representative by the name Peter to the Pope.86 At Cairo, the delegation received a
warm welcome from the Greek Patriarch of Alexandria Philotheus. The Patriarch
reported that he already received the copy of the proclamation of the Union from the
metropolitan of Rhodes. Then Sarteano met John, the Patriarch of the Copts at Cairo.
John sent his abbot Andrew with the Franciscans to represent the Copts in Rome. The
Franciscans, Sarteano, and abbot Andrew reached Florence on August 26th, 1441.
The Pope and the Council received the abbot on August 31st. The Copt presented
his credentials and expressed the hope of the union. Two days after, Peter from Jerusalem
came to the Pope as well.87 Soon after, both Peter and Andrew had sessions with cardinals
Torquemada, Le Jeune, and Cesarini. Available material hints that Andrew and Peter did
their best to demonstrate the “orthodoxy” of their churches. The impressed cardinals
recommended only few practices in need of adjustment: male circumcision, issues of
marriage and divorce, etc. They also spent some time instructing Andrew and Peter.
86
This tiny monastery, Deir Sultan is still functioning in Jerusalem. I visited one of its two tiny
ancient chapels in 2008.
87
Gill points that while the abbot Andrew represented the Patriarch John and the Coptic Church,
Peter acted on behalf of his monastery with hints to contact to secular powers in Ethiopia. Although the
Patriarch John was “also theoretically head of the Abyssinian Church,” in reality he had no ecclesiastical
control over the Ethiopians. Hence, at Florence, Peter and Andrew were treated at “two distinct embassies”
32
Finally, on February 4th, 1442 the Union between the see of Rome and the Copts of Egypt
was proclaimed in the bull Cantate Domino88.
It is interesting that there is no mentioning of the Abyssinian Church in the bull;
this could be additional evidence that Peter did not have credentials to represent his
church. Just as Armenian Decretum pro Armenis, Cantate Domino is a long document.
Unsure about the actual beliefs of the Copts, Eugene IV decided to cover as much
doctrinal ground as he could. Hence, the bull contains the anathemas to the Manicheans
and “all the heretics of the Trinitarian and Christological controversies.”89 It also
stipulates the abandonment of the Hebrew Scriptures’ practices of the male circumcision,
unclean food, and Sabbath. The Bull instructs the Copts to stop waiting 40 days before
baptizing the children. Although the later relationships between the see of Rome and the
Copts were complicated, this was the beginning of the Coptic Catholic Church in full
communion with the Pope. Although Eugene IV made number of additional attempts to
reach the Ethiopians, it took another century to start the unification that led to the current
Ethiopian Catholic Church, another Uniate ecclesial body.
At the end of September of 1443, the Council moved to Rome and held its
sessions at the Lateran basilica. After one year, the union with the Syrian Church was
achieved and proclaimed in the bull Multa et Admirabilia. Patriarch Ignatius, the head of
this Church, sent the archbishop of Edessa Abdale to represent the Syrians. The
archbishop spent considerable amount of time discussing the doctrines of the Syrian
88
English translation can be found online at “The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445),”
Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV, Catholicism.Org, accessed November 7, 2012
http://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html.
89
33
Church until he accepted the Roman teaching on Filioque, two natures, and two wills in
Christ.
The Franciscans share the credit for this achievement. In 1441, Pope sent them to
“the provinces of Tartary, Assyria, Persia and Ethiopia, as well as to the nations of the
Maronites, the Druses, and Nestorians and the Syrians.”90 Since the Maronites were
already in the communion with the see of Rome, they received invitation to participate in
the Council of Florence beforehand. At that time the Maronite Patriarch John sent a
message to the Pope, insuring that he would accept any decree of CF. Hence, when the
news of the union with Greeks reached the Maronites, they rejoiced with such fervor that
the Ottoman governor – suspecting that a new crusade was coming – initiated a series of
pogroms among the Maronites. After the death of the Patriarch John and elections of the
new head of the Maronite Church, the Pope sent the pallium to the successor. This link
remained to be unbroken to our days.
Another unification occurred on August 7th, 1445. This time the Chaldean
Church joined the Union. Timotheus, archbishop of Tarsus, represented the Chaldeans in
Rome. The bull, Benedictus sits Deus, dealt with a number of issues that ranged from the
Nestorianism to instructions about the prohibition to add oil into the Eucharistic bread.
Nevertheless, these were minor achievements. The overwhelming majority of
Eastern Orthodox faithful at the time were under the jurisdictions that ultimately rejected
the Union. Although most Greeks did not remain in the union, now there are over 17
90
34
million faithful of various Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with the bishop
of Rome.91
Eugene IV died on February 23rd, 1447. The formal dissolution of the Council
occurred sometime prior to his death, but there is no record for the Bull of Dissolution.
Nicholas V, Eugene IV successor, worked hard to keep the Union as much as it was
within his power. The West accommodated various Eastern Churches to the best it could:
offering compromise when achievable, help when needed, acceptance when asked. On
certain points of doctrine, the see of Rome could not compromise. A new paradigm of
these interactions took a strong and long-lasting hold. The secular interests of the
Western nations did not constitute the highest priority to the Popes. Unfortunately, the
Eastern ecclesiastical authorities could not afford such “luxury.” There, political realities
often tramped dogmatic issues.
91
“Eastern Catholic Churches Statistics,” CNEWA, A Papal Agency for Humanitarian and Pastoral
Support, accessed November 12, 2012, http://www.cnewa.org/default.aspx?
ID=125&pagetypeID=1&sitecode=HQ&pageno=1.
CHAPTER 2
WHAT WENT WRONG
Why did most Eastern Orthodox Christians reject the Union? I stipulate that this
denunciation occurred mainly because at the CF, the genuine meeting of the Christian
East and West did not happen. There was only an appearance of the dialogue. Due to
logistical difficulties and truly abysmal philological and theological gaps between the two
camps, neither of them truly understood the position of the counterpart. Even when
“Latins” and “Greeks” were speaking in the same language, the meaning of the terms
they utilized were often incompatible. With the addition of political pressure and realities
of the imminent threat of the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks, there was no
chance for the Christian East and West to present their perspective views, have
constructive dialogue, and come to some compromise.
Filioque
The question of Filioque was central to the schism. Even Mark Eugenicus
believed that once Filioque was removed from the Creed, there would be no impediment
for the achieving of the Union.92 The debates centered on two aspects of the doctrine. The
first questioned whether the insertion to the Creed was lawful; second investigated the
theological validity of the teaching.93
92
93
Geanokplos even asserts that the Greeks “insisted that the dogmatic aspect of the filioque was
irrelevant and…the question for debates should be simply the legality of adding to the creed.”
36
The Greeks’ position was simple. In accordance with the Seventh Canon of the
Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431, there should be no addition to the Creed.94
The Latins, on their part, pointed that the West did not add or change the Creed. Filioque
only properly explained, clarified, and logically developed the apostolic teaching of the
Creed.95 In addition, the Westerners argued that Canon 7 prohibited inclusion in the
Creed of any heterodox doctrine. Since the Filioque does not belong to this category,
adding it to the Creed should not be a problem.96
During the Filioque debates, Andrew of Rhodes used Letter to Marinus by
Maximus the Confessor. Andrew’s logic was to prove that Filioque as a concept, used by
Maximus in his debates with monothelites, was in the Latin version of the Creed by the
Sixth Ecumenical Council. Moreover, the Greeks were fully aware of this fact. Andrew,
just as the rest of the Latins, did not know that the Greeks agreed beforehand to use the
Letter to Marinus as the formula for the Union. Therefore, the Greeks welcomed
Andrew’s use of the Letter to Marinus. The Latins reacted quickly and decisively. They
94
Sevcenko, “Intellectual Repercussions,” 298. In addition, Geanokoplos states:” To the medieval
Latin mind, development in ritual even in dogma – for example, the doctrine of the filioque – could be
sanctioned by the papacy. But for the Greek mentality, the criterion of ecclesiastical truth, apart from Holy
Scripture, was adherence to the doctrines and traditions established by the first seven ecumenical concils.”
95
During the Council, the best exposition of this theory was provided on the session that begun on
October 20th, 1438 during the speech by Andrew, the archbishop of Rhodes. Gill condenses the speech –
worth stating in the full since its fully represent the winning argument of the Latins -- to the following: “An
exposition or development is not an addition; but the Filioque is a development being contained in ex Patre
– therefore it is not an addition. To prove the major premise he (Andrew of Rhodes) argued: Every addition
is from without (as nutriment is from without); but development or clarification is not from without –
therefore it is not an addition. The minor premise of his second syllogism he demonstrated by examples to
show that the faith of Nicaea was an amplification of the New Testament and that later Councils had
clarified Nicaea, not leas the Council of Constantinople whose Creed, as Eugenicus admitted, differed from
the Nicene Creed, yet was accepted by the Council of Ephesus and posterity as its equivalent.” Gill, The
Council, 151.
96
As Gill states: ”If the Filioque is not true, it should not have been added to the Creed. But if it is
true, then there is no law against its inclusion there.” Gill, The Council, 161.
37
knew very well that this text offered only dubious support for their side. Some aspects of
Letter to Marinus’ some aspects strengthened West’s position, but its full acceptance
would negate Rome’s doctrine of Filioque. Hence, they questioned the authenticity and
the completeness of the Letter and withdrew Andrew’s arguments.97 Further detailed
analysis proved that the doubts about the authenticity of the letter were well grounded.98
During the later debates, the Greeks returned more than once with a proposition to use the
Letter to Marinus as the unifying base on the question of Filioque. In particular, John
VIII Palaiologos was the strongest proponent of this idea. 99 Nevertheless, the Latins
would not accept such proposal.
The linguistic factor became another complication in discussions around Filioque.
It was hard to find the proper translation into Greek central to the issue of Filioque Latin
term processio.100 Even when both sides used same patristic sources, it remained a
problem. Perhaps, the issue reached the heights of the misunderstanding when Mark
Eugenicus and Montenero led the debates. They appealed to the texts by Basil the Great,
Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus Confessor, Athanasius, and Epiphanius. Besides the debate
from the patristic heritage, for “cultivated” Greeks often “rational arguments were only a
cover for suspicion and resentment.”101 Yet, Montenero was able to put the minds of
Greek at ease – with the notable exception of Mark Eugenicus – by clearly stating that the
97
98
For detailed analysis, see A. Edward Siecienski, “The Authenticity of Maximus the Confessor’s
Letter to Marinus: the Argument from Theological Consistency,” Vigiliae Christianae, 61, no.2
(May:2007): 189-227.
99
Siecienski, The Filioque,160,163-164.
100
Besides footnote 15, see excellent explanation with possible translations and their limitations in
101
38
Roman Catholics believe in one, singular cause from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.
Montenero also pointed to the revered by the Greeks Tome as well as to accepted by them
in 519 Pope Hormisdas’ Formula of Faith.102 At times, the Greeks asserted that the Latins
do not have the correct versions of the patristic text, but could not substantiate such
claims. At one point Montenero provided Mark of Ephesus with a manuscript of Basil the
Great that came to the West from Constantinople with Nicholas of Cusa. In it, he pointed
out that the quoted by Mark Basil’s text was seemingly corrupt, according to the clearly
byzantine manuscript. To make things worse, it was a “passage supporting the Latin view
of the filioque [sic]” that “had been expunged from a copy held in the hands of the
Orthodox spokesmen.”103 This was an embarrassment to the most Greeks, who had no
other recourse but to concede the point.
As stated earlier, after prolonged discussion the Latins were able to satisfy the
Greeks that they do not hold the position of two separate sources or causes for Holy
Spirit. This seems to have “made a deep impression on the Greeks,” and became a
turning point in the negotiations.104 At the end, the Latins convinced the Greeks to accept
the formula that Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from Father and Son as single cause or
principle. When both Greek Fathers of the past said that Holy Spirit is “proceeding from
the Father through the Son,” they also meant “from the Father and the Son.” Mark
Eugenicus, obviously, objected. Nevertheless, even he could not win the argument
among the Greeks after Isidore of Kyiv clearly pointed that Cyril of Alexandria had no
issues with the western formula. Thus, the Council concluded that East and West might
102
Chadwick, East and West, 267.
103
104
39
have used different formula, but it has the same meaning. It appears that at least at
Florence, Greeks took this explanation with full faith and clear conscience: they were
indeed convinced on the point, at least for some time.
Contemporary Eastern Orthodox theologians point to the lack of understanding
of the true nature of the Filioque controversy, exhibited at that time by both Latins and
Greeks.105 Hence, the decision to put the Western model into the status of dogma under
the CF’s Laetentur Caeli was a clear mistake.106 It is evident now that Christian East and
West were operating within two distinct Trinitarian models that stood correspondingly on
the shoulders of St. Augustine and the Cappadocians. Hence, CF did not engage into the
main subject on this controversy. Namely, were these two distinct Trinitarian paradigms
totally incompatible? Alternatively, as the contemporary consensus of Eastern Orthodox
perspective seems to indicate, were both models valid and, consequently, legitimate? If
yes, they should have been viewed as complementary and deserving to be preserved
under the umbrella of one unified Church.107
Purgatory
For Greeks, the Latin doctrine of the purifying fire of Purgatory was among
secondary questions. By the time of CF, the Christian West solidified the teaching about
Purgatory as a temporary place for souls that repented, but could not complete the
atonement for their sins prior to death.108 At CF, Western theologians argued that this
105
For example, see Papadakis, The Christian East, 386-401, 407.
106
107
As Nicol states, that even at the time of CF “all who genuinely desired union could see that the
question was one of interpretation and not of significance.” Nicol, The Last Centuries, 358.
108
Gill states that that document on the Latin doctrine on Purgatory that was delivered to the
Greeks for the discussion was “taken almost verbatim form the Professions of Faith made in the name of
40
teaching was rooted in the apostolic tradition. Hence, it should be mandatory for the
whole Church.
To win the dispute, they appealed to the arguments from the rational schemes of
the western scholasticism. More importantly, they appealed to the authority of St.
Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. Gregory the Great. At the end, the Greeks conceded and
agreed to the most definitions of the western formula on the doctrine. Hence, the decision
was to adopt a view that some souls are cleansed by the purifying punishment after death.
Already cleansed souls go straight to heaven. The unbaptized or deceased under the
condition of deadly sin immediately descend to Hell. Under the pressure from the Greeks,
Roman Catholics did not include teaching of material fire and the physical place of
Purgatory.109
Papal Primacy
The last few sessions of the Council dealt with the question of Papal primacy. The
Greeks were clearly aware of what was going on in Basel, but did not pay much attention
to the conciliar movement at this time. They did not offer any critical objections to the
arguments of western specialists on the ground of the canon law. The apologists of the
papal power seem to have an easy win. The Greeks did object on most points during the
debates. Yet, their opposition was not as forceful as on the question of Filioque. It did not
take long time and lengthy argumentation to persuade the Greeks.110 Moreover, their
remarks demonstrated that Christian East understanding of authority and real power of
Michael VIII Palaeologus at the second Council of Lyons.” Gill, The Council, 120.
109
For Greeks, the fire of the Purgatory reminded Origen and his doctrine that stipulated that “the
fires of hell are not eternal.” Gill, The Council, 121.
110
Gill, The Council, 279, 286.
41
the Pope that was far from realities at the end of the Middle age or Western canonical
development in this area. If there was something on this issue that the Greeks were
concerned, it was to safeguard the doctrine of Pentarchy. In this, Latins were happy to
oblige the Greeks within reasonable limits.
Hence, Laetentur Caeli stipulated that the see of Rome and its holder serve as a
Vicar of Christ, the head of the Church. As the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome
holds “plenta potestas” (full power) to lead the Church. The council wisely stated that
this power exists “quemadmodum et” (to the degree which) previous ecumenical councils
and their canons established. Nevertheless, the decree of the Union did not resemble the
earlier formula of primus inter paris (first among equals). Instead, the Pope is clearly
described as the head of the whole Church with universal jurisdiction over doctrinal
teaching and rule. After him, in descending order, is the patriarch of Constantinople,
followed by the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.111
Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to count this section as a total victory of the
Latins. Once more, it was only misunderstanding on both sides. Already discussed
linguistic factors played a role. When Greeks spoke of Corpus Christi, they invoked the
Church beyond time and space; Latins viewed it as the visible reality under the
jurisdiction of the see of Rome. Perhaps, the Greeks accepted the formula so easily
because the language of Laetentur Caeli could be read and interpreted in the light of
Pentarchy. The Greeks totally missed the new canonical development and re-definition of
111
For the current implications and perceptions of the Papal role and rule within Orthodox world
and Uniate (Eastern Catholic) Churches, see Waclaw Hryniewicz, “The Cost of Unity: The Papal Primacy
in Recent Orthodox Reflections,” in The Challenge of Our Hope: Christian Faith in Dialogue, “ Polish
Philosophical Studies, VII,” Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Change Series IVA, Eastern and Central
Europe, vol. 32, general editor George F. McLean (Washington, D.C: The Council for Research in Values
and Philosophy, 2007), 185-205.
42
papal power, in which jurisdictional, secular, and administrative authority of the see of
Rome became distinct from purely sacral functions.112 For the Christian East, these
functions have been inseparable from the beginning of the formation of canons of the
ecclesiastical traditions of the early separated Church.
In the East, there has been a long tradition that Peter does not belong to the see of
Rome alone.113 After all, Jerusalem and Antioch can claim him with the same validity as
Rome. Petrine doctrine in the East consists of the view that Peter was the model of each
bishop within his jurisdiction.114 Orthodox theologians point out that long Patristic
traditions of both East and West have been interpreting πετρα in Matthew 16: 18-19 as: a)
Christ; b) Faith in his divinity.115 Despite the fact that the Christian West has claimed St.
Cyprian of Carthage to be one of the pillars of its heritage, this North African theologian,
bishop, and saint of undivided Church clearly advocated the position that each bishop in
his diocese is the holder of Peter’s cathedra. The same interpretation of Peter as the
representative of apostolic community may be found in Origen, Augustine, Ambrosius,
and Pacian of Barcelona.116 St. Gregory of Nyssa’s formulation of this thought became
standard for the Christian East. Hence, when the Christian East spoke of the heritage of
St. Peter, and his “keys,” it connected this function to the whole episcopate, not just the
112
Later on, the Eastern Orthodox theologians view such development that started progressing
from IX century as the main reason of the schism. Hence, the See of Rome caused the schism, not Christian
East. Архимандрит Владимир (Гетте), Папство, 14.
113
Sherrard, The Greek East, 73-86.
114
The language is not inclusive due to the historical context.
115
For the list of citations of Hilary (Hilarius) of Poitiers, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrosius, Jerome,
John Chrysostom, Augustine, Acacius, Cyrill of Alexandira, Pope Gregory I ( he is called in East as
Gregory the Great), John of Damascus, see Гетте, Папство,19.
116
Гетте, Папство, 20.
43
see of Rome.117 Each bishop ordained within apostolic secession is the holder of Peter’s
keys.118 To be sure, the Christian East has accepted the primacy of the See of Rome.
Nevertheless, it was always primus inter pares, not one of universal jurisdiction.
Hence, when Greeks introduced to Laetentur Caeli note that Popes’ plena
potestas should be understood within the framework of acts and decision of the
ecumenical councils of the undivided Church, it was enough to put their minds at ease.
For Latins, the language of the power and status of the holder of the see of Rome from
the Bull of Unification was strong enough to bury the conciliarism and lay the foundation
for the development of “papal” dogma that reached its peak at the First Vatican Council.
At the end, it was not a compromise, but introduction into Laetentur Caeli two mutually
exclusive and contradictory concepts. Some contemporary Eastern Orthodox scholars
view the failure to resolve this issue as a “more fundamental reason for the failure of the
union” since it constituted “the conflict between two basic conceptions of the church.”119
Vox populi
One of the main reasons of the failure of the Union in the remnants of the
Byzantine Empire was the undeniable hostility of the “common” people toward the
Latins.120 As stated above, the turning point occurred after the events of 1204. Even
Josesh Gill, a Roman Catholic historian, admits that this was “a climax” of the “anti-
Latinism” that “for centuries been part of the Greek outlook.” 121 Gill writes: “The anti-
117
Гетте, Папство,17.
118
Here the apostolic succession viewed within its traditional understanding and application in
Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches without the discussion of its historical validity.
119
120
“…the deep-rooted antagonism for the Latins felt by the Greek population of Constantinople on
whom, in the last analysis, the success of union depended.” Geanakoplos, “The Council of Florence,” 325.
121
44
unionist propaganda was so effective because it was so harmonious with the Greek
mentality.”122 But what the same author calls in another place the “man in the street…and
the innumerable ill-educated, and often vagrant, monks who were his spiritual guides”
from his Western perspective is the source of pride for the Eastern counterparts.123
While Byzantine’s elites were willing to compromise for political reasons, the
masses and the monks placed the purity of their faith first. For this reason, Mark
Eugenicus and his fellow anti-unionists were writing in a common language that was
crude even for their contemporaries.124 For example, John Eugenicus called his opponents
“animal-like people, monsters”, “three times cursed” “stupid and unwise people who seek
their shepherd to be a wolf, an apostate.” 125 He called Laetentur Caeli to be
“blasphemous and false”, “empty chatter” and “demonic delirium.” He exhorted the
faithful to “hate those who hate the Lord [Latins and Uniats]…with perfect hatred hate
them.” 126 John Eugenicus wrote his main work, the Antirretic, between 1445 and 1453.
In it, he quotes Laetentur Caeli in full with a commentary that even his orthodox
supporters find to be “mockery.” 127
The first paragraph states: “You dared to call ορος [dogmatic definition of an
ecumenical council in Eastern Orthodox Church] this foolishness, this privilege of the
122
123
124
As Sevcenko summarizes this approach, “Among the common faithful, emotion was
everything.” Sevcenko, “Intellectual Repercussions,” 299.
125
А.В. Занемонец, Иоанн Евгеник, 59-60.
126
А.В. Занемонец, Иоанн Евгеник, 71, 79, 108-109.
127
45
Pope-the-employer. I do not even know how it should be called. The justice demands it to
be given the name of the most shameful, unworthy and flagitious little book.” 128 In
another passage, he calls it a “terrible, criminal, and dirty little book (τομαριον).”129 The
“pitiable” and “apostate” Pope is no less than “Judas.”130
Even outside the Byzantium, the popular stories about CF quickly became
legends. In decades after the Council, there were number of tales describing
imprisonment and torture of Mark Eugenicus with other metropolitans and bishops in
order to force them to sign Laetentur Caeli. In these legends, upon the refusal to concede
the faith, they were killed.131 After one of Mark’s speeches, “Pope together with
cardinals, archbishops and bishops run away from the hall where the council was held.”132
The Pope, seeing that his side lost, was offering the Greeks money, so they can leave the
Council and allow him to save the face.133 Moreover, when some “philosopher John”
(probably, this reflects the distant memory of John of Torquemada) was belittling Mark
Eugenicus, he dropped dead by the word of the bishop of Ephesus. The same happened to
clearly fictional “Archimandrite Ambroisius of Florence” when he attempted to bribe
Mark Eugenicus on the orders of the Pope.134
128
129
130
131
Делекторский, Критико-Библиографический Обзор,167.
132
133
134
46
With time, these legends became more and more elaborate, especially in the
border territories of the new divide between Christian East and West.135 Published in
1598 in Ostroh History of Listrian [from ληστριкός,] the Robber Council of Ferrara or
Florence, Briefly but Fairly Written tells an incredible story about CF.136 The chief villain
is an unnamed abbot from Rhodes. During the council, Latins became convinced of their
errors and the correct doctrine of the Greeks. They published a decree, stipulating that the
Filioque was added mistakenly. When the abbot heard about it, he took two thousands of
crusaders and with threats forced the Pope to allow him to break the established
agreement and write new decree. Then the abbot forced the Greeks to sign this new
decree. The weak among them signed, while the strong refused. Hence, the abbot
imprisoned 60 bishops, 150 priests and deacons. Some of them were not given food for
fifteen days, some were tortured with fire, and some were smothered. Among the martyrs
were “metropolitans of Amacia, Silimvri, Chalcedon, Nicodemea, Phillipi, Diomentrea,
Trapezynd, and Evrine…other killed Eastern presbyters were more than 1000 souls.” 137
In this story, Mark Eugenicus successfully escapes from Italy to Ephesus. The Patriarch
of Constantinople Joseph II was choked to death.138 Clearly, such tales reflected the
common reception of the Union by the lower classes on the Christian East.
Western historians acknowledge as well that most proponents of the Union come
from the secular and ecclesial elites of the Empire. For their opponents, the doctrinal
issues played secondary role to the cultural divide, prejudice, and hostility that the Greek
135
136
137
138
47
masses held toward the Latins. It is in this area where Roman Catholic historians look for
the main reasons of the Union’s demise. Gill exemplifies this Western approach: “…the
upper classes throughout more inclined to accept the union and being solidly for it…and
the lower ranks of society on the whole against it, following rather the monks, nuns and
the lower clergy who, under the influence of a fairly small group of determined leaders,
as a class were opposed to it.”139 No amount of explanations by their own rulers or the
coming threat of the Turks could reverse the centuries of the popular anti-western
sentiments. This populist style worked well. The reason why there are so many proposed
authors of the famous statement: “Better the Sultan’s turban than the Pope’s mitre” might
be because there were too many who identified themselves with this credo. 140 It was
cultural resentment -- based on described earlier historical events -- that drove the
decisive divide between the Latins and Greeks not mere theological differences.141 As a
Eastern Orthodox scholar noted: “This popular antipathy for the Latins was more than
religious in scope, but it tended, in the spirit of the age, to find expression in the
church.”142
In addition, the populace of the remnants of Byzantium was led not by its
ecclesiastic elites, but by the monks who had the ear of the common people. The
monastic influence surged after their victory against anti-palamite fraction. Mark
Eugenicus, although a flesh and blood of the Constantinopolitan elite, knew very well
139
140
Byzantine historian Ducas puts it into the moth of Luke Notaras Gill, The Council, 375 ; others
give credit to John Eugenicus or Gennadius Scholarius А.В. Занемонец, Иоанн Евгеник, 54, 57-58.
141
These issues are discussed in Hryniewicz, “ The Florentine Union,” 167-184.
142
48
how to appeal to this group.143 Instead of high rhetoric and deep theological argument, he
used their “street” language and without much effort won himself an army of monks. In
turn, they quickly isolated pro-unionists to a small circle, centered around Emperor’s
palace. At the end, the Union fell because the masses rejected it.
Other Themes
Besides these underlying rifts, there were ritual and cultural differences that
played significant role at CF. The Greeks considered the custom of shaving clergyman’s
144
beards to be “contrary to the nature,” womanizing and against Lev.19:27. Both at CF
and after the Greek delegation came back to Constantinople, the debates around leavened
vs. unleavened bread at the Eucharist brought more attention than the Trinitarian issues.
Laetentur Caeli declared the equal validity of both uses, but this was not acceptable for
the Greeks when they arrived home.145 The proclamation of the legitimacy of Western
practice became one of the chief tools of the anti-unionists to raise the masses for their
cause.
Despite the fact that both Latins and Greeks were eager to explore each other’s
beliefs and practices, they missed the chance to provide a dialogue between Western
Thomists and Eastern Palamists.146 Both interpretations of their perspective tradition
(Thomism for Christian West and Palamism for Christian East) represented new
143
On the upbringing of Mark and John Eugenicus, see А.В. Занемонец, Иоанн Евгеник, 11-15.
144
145
146
49
paradigms within each side. Ultimately, they defined and became predominant
interpretations of each church for centuries. The Latins did not know much about
palamite hesychasm; moreover, the Byzantine Emperor John VII Palaiologos made
decision to omit any discussion on this subject at the Council.147 The Greeks were not
aware of Thomism as well.
147
Сиропул, Воспоминания, V:38, 143-144.
CHAPTER 3
THE BITTER END
One commentator summarized the current and the past understanding by the
Eastern Orthodox Church of what went wrong at CF: “Instead of the triumph of the truth,
there was submission of the Eastern Church to Rome; instead of unity – Union.”148 Even
contemporary Roman Catholic historians acknowledge that CF “was conceived and
conducted very largely for the gratification for the Roman Church.”149 Syropoulos writes
that at the end, “Greeks knew that ορος was signed by the Emperor; hence, they signed it
too. Latins knew that it was signed by the Greeks and the Pope; hence, they signed it as
well. Meanwhile, the majority did not know what was written there.”150
Since the formal prerequisites for the ecumenical council were met, the Greeks
had to find a way to demonstrate why its οροζ (decision) should not be binding and CF
not being placed among ecumenical councils.151 Syropoulos provides a set of
explanations. They are still standard for the overwhelming majority of the contemporary
Eastern Orthodox theologians and historians.152 The entire subchapter X.28 of

148
«...вместо торжества инстины произошло подчинение Восточной церкви Риму, а вместо
единства – уния.» (author’s translation ) А.В. Занемонец, Иоанн Евгеник, 17.
149
Nicol, The Last Centuries, 355.
150
Сиропул, Воспоминания, X.29, 300.
151
It appears that in the new reality under the Turkish rule, Greeks became accustomed to explain
their actions on the following emerging consensus among them: at Ferrara-Florence, there was not a
council, but a theological dispute that they lost. А.В. Занемонец, Иоанн Евгеник,37.
152
As an example, see Ivan Ostroumov, The History of the Council of Florence, ed. by Rev.
J.M.Neale ( London: Joseph Masters, 1861, reprint by Charleston, SC: Bibliolife, 2009), 186-189.
51
Syropoulos’ Memoirs is dedicated to this task. He begins by stating that “all Latins and
Greeks, especially those who possess rational thinking and reason, did not consider” what
occurred at CF to be “the decision of the Ecumenical Council.” Hence, “they did not
blame those who refused to accept it.”153 This was more wishful thinking on Syropoulos’
behalf than real depiction of the facts.
Syropoulos based his argumentation on the premise that during the previous
Ecumenical Council’s there were detailed discussions of the subject matter. Before any
voting took place, the decisions of the prior Councils were read and evaluated. Each
bishop was asked about his point of view and the basis for it; this was done in an open
and unrestrained matter. The final decisions were made “in accordance with agreement of
all bishops, or the majority of the best of them.” 154 The Greeks stipulated CF did not
follow this practice. Syropoulos continually stresses that there was no proper discussions
and dialogue at CF. Decisions were made after close negotiations between the Pope, the
Emperor, the Patriarch, and a close circle of Greeks that were included into this process.
Contemporary Eastern Orthodox theologians refrain this theme in their evaluation of CF.
It is best summarized by the leading Eastern Orthodox theologian of the end of the 20th
century, John Meyendorff: “While analyzing the debates in Florence, it would be fair to
note that the council discussed some problematic issues without reaching any decision
while it decided other issues without proper discussion.” 155 Syropoulos summarizes this
thought by stating that in relation to the prerequisite canonical provision “no one
153
154
155
Translation from Russian mine. И.Ф. Мейендорф, “Флорентийский Собор: Причины
Исторической Неудачи” in Из Истории Русской Культуры, Т.Н. Кн.1, Киевская и Московская Русь,
сост. А.Ф. Литвина, Ф.Б.Успенский (Москва: Языки Славянской Культуры, 2002), 404.
52
disputes” that the “gathered Council was Ecumenical,” but it was mere «σχημα», “visual
impression” of one.156
Once more, the interactions at FC showed the immense abyss that by that time
occurred between the Christian East and West. Each side used different methodological
approach that would have prevented the open-to-all dialogue even if the procedural
setting of the Council would allow it to occur. Mark Eugenicus said that compared his
attempts to speak to the Latins were as fruitless as attempts to “sing to the deaf ears or
boil a stone, or sow on the stone, or write on the water, or something similar as it is said
in proverbs about impossible.”157 As mentioned earlier, the Latins were using the best
arguments from their medieval tower of scholasticism. Greeks – with few exceptions –
appealed to the authority of Scripture and the Church Fathers. Syropoulos tells how
during the discussion about the Purgatory, Spaniard John of Torquemada inquired Mark
Eugenicus: “Tell us, the fire – to which you refer as something that will consume sinners
– from which substance it will be lighted, and how will it be burning those who are sent
there?” The bishop of Ephesus’ reply was iconic: “One who asks this question will know
the answer when he gets there.”158
Crusade
On top of this constant tension, there was a Turkish threat. Upon the conclusion of
CF, the Pope agreed to send to Constantinople 300 soldiers, two galleries and -- if the
need arose -- 20 additional galleries for a year. The Pope also agreed to call for a crusade
156
157
158
Сиропул, Воспоминания, X:34, 140-141.
53
if Constantinople faced an imminent deadly threat. In addition, in order to revive the
economic life of Constantinople, Eugene IV promised to request that all pilgrimages to
the Holy Land go through the city. It is hard to accuse the Pope of the lack of attempts to
deliver on his promises. In fact, he did even more than he promised: Eugene IV
enthusiastically begun working on bridging the peace among different European states so
they could channel their energy to fighting the Ottoman Turks.159 In October 1439,
Eugene IV appointed new apostolic nuncio to Greece and sent him there with 12000
ducats as a contribution for the defense of Constantinople. Meanwhile, the Pope issued
proclamation to the whole Church to gather navy and land armies for the crusade to crush
the Ottoman Empire.
Unfortunately, due to the death of King Albert, an open conflict erupted for the
throne of Hungary and Eugene IV had to send Cardinal Cesarini as his Legate to the
Eastern Europe. After prolonged negotiations, Caserini began organizing land forces
under the king of Poland-Hungary, and the princes of Wallachia, Albania, and Serbia. To
raise the funds for the crusade, Eugene IV issued a tithe on the whole Church in January
1443. In July of the same year, the crusading army started advancing to the Ottoman
territory, won the major battle at Nish and liberated Sofia. Murad II, the Ottoman ruler,
pleaded for peace. Polish king Ladislas signed a treaty, promising a truce for ten years; he
proceeded with this step without Cesarini’s knowledge. The cardinal was furious. Using
all means he had – especially ecclesiastical power – Cesarini persuaded Ladislas to
abandon the treaty. Naturally, he absolved the Polish king from his oath to Murad II.
159
For example, Eugenius IV made efforts to bridge peace between Spain and Portugal; England
and France. Gill, The Council, 318.
54
While this all was taking place, Eugene IV appointed Cardinal Condulmaro as his
legate to organize the navy. Due to the thorny political situation in Europe, it was not an
easy task. Nevertheless, after complicated negotiations between Genoa, Venice, Rhodes,
Duke of Burgundy and Alfonso of Aragon, the fleet was organized. It arrived in
Constantinople in August 1444.
Finally, the crusaders -- counting around 20,000 soldiers -- crossed over the
Danube on September 22nd. By November, the army reached the Black See around Varna.
Before they could march toward Constantinople, the Ottoman forces, counting no less
than 80, 000 troops, met the crusaders. The battle occurred on November 10th; the
crusaders were utterly destroyed, all their leaders were killed. Only general Hunyadi
survived. According to some rumors, Cardinal Cesarini and King Ladislas had survived
as well. Burgundian fleet unsuccessfully tried to find them on the coast of the Black See.
This was the end of the crusade. Due to the rumors about Ladislas’ survival,
Poland did not have a king for many years and thus had its priorities elsewhere. Eugene
IV did what he could to raise other forces, but it was in vain. As for the Greeks, they
interpreted the defeat at Varna as “divine retribution for Byzantine sins and the
conclusion of the Union was foremost among them.” 160
Isidore’s Mission
After the conclusion of the Council of Florence Isidore, the metropolitan of Kyiv,
took the journey to his see. He went there as an apostolic legate of Rome in all territories
of his jurisdiction over the faithful orthodox rite in Lithuania, Livionia, Rus’, and Poland.
160
55
There were challenges and issues to solve. Isidore had to find a common ground between
these often-warring kingdoms and principalities in addition to finding acceptance from
both Latin-rite and Oriental-rite inhabitants of the territories of his ecclesial jurisdiction.
Hence, from Buda he issued an encyclical letter, announcing the decrees of the
Council and its practical provisions, including the equality of both rites. Isidore did not
go straight to Kyiv or Moscow, but first came to Cracow. At the first glance, the Union
produced remarkable results: the metropolitan – who was also made a cardinal by this
time – celebrated an orthodox liturgy in the main cathedral and was recognized as the
rightful metropolitan by the kingdom of Poland. Then Isidore went to predominantly
orthodox Galicia to solidify his base.161 After visiting the capital city of Lithuania, Vilna,
he proceeded to Kyiv.
Here, at the seat of his metropolitan see, Isidore successfully worked on
solidifying the Union. Kyiv had strategic importance to all neighbors, although the city
ceased to be the capital of Ukrainian, Ruthenian, or Rus’ state. Although it has lost the
secular power, the city remained the ecclesial center for the emerging orthodox east
Slavic nations that later became the Ukrainians, Russians, and Byelorussians. At the time,
these people were under the rule – with constant wars for the dominance -- by Roman
Catholic Poland, Lithuania, Teutonic Knights and Orthodox Muscovy principalities.
Hence, the Union was helping the Roman Catholic powers in the region. They were eager
to extend their control more and more toward the East. Vasili, who was ruling the
principality of Moscow, dreamed of exerting his control over the ecclesial keeper of the
see of Kyiv. Until this time, his attempt to install Jonas of Ryasan’ was not successful:
It should be noted that from that time this region remained to be stronghold of the Union; this
161
remained to be the case to the current times. The Union of Lublin of 1659 only solidified existing realities.
56
Constantinople continued its policy of appointing new metropolitans of Kyiv. After all,
that is how Isidore, whom John Eugenicus called “old apostate among the new
apostates,” became the metropolitan.
Consequently, when Isidore of Kyiv finally arrived to Moscow in March of 1441 ,
there was no warm welcome for the rightful metropolitan. To aggravate matter even
more, he entered the city wearing Latin vestments. Then Isidore proceeded in his usual
manner. He commemorated the Pope at liturgy and read Laetentur Caeli from the pulpit
in the Ascension Church of Kremlin. Moscow was not Buda, Cracow, Vilna, or Kyiv.
Vasili arrested and interrogated Isidore the charges of being a heretic. Nevertheless, the
Moscovian ruler could not proceed further. The bishops controlled by Vasili bishops
represented only a section of Isidore’s synod and could not canonically put their own
Metropolitan on the trial. Hence, to save the situation, Vasili enabled Isidore to flee the
city.
Although the history of the Uniats within Isidore’s metropolitan territory of has
been complicated, one of the descendants of the Uniat churches, the Ukrainian Greek
Catholic Church, remains the larger Uniate (or Eastern Catholic) body within the Roman
Catholic Church, currently counting around 5 million faithful. 162 As for Muscovy, the
fall of Constantinople allowed its rulers to gain a bargain from controlled by the Turks
Patriarch to get the de facto ecclesiastical independence from the see of Constantinople;
a century later, they got their own Patriarchate.163

162
Gill, The Council, 394-395; another short, but excellent review of the actions of Isidore of Kyiv
and the developments that led to the Unon of Brest (1596) from the current Roman Catholic perspective is
found in Hryniewicz, “The Florentine Union,” 207-221.
163
А.В. Занемонец, Иоанн Евгеник, 62. For the role of Isodor of Kiev and the reception of the
Union of Florence in Kyivan and Moskovan Rus”, and Poland, Lithuania with forthcoming Rzeczpospolita,
see recent work В.М. Лурье, Русское Православие между Киевом и Москвой, 23-148.; Sevcenko,
“Intellectual Repercussions,” 306-311.
57
The Fiasco
As noted in Chapter 1, the Eastern Church made significant effort to meet the
criteria for CF to be truly ecumenical council.164 The Byzantine Emperor John VIII
Palaiologos was present. Representatives of each patriarchate of the old Pentarchy were
appointed with full power to make decisions on behalf of their ecclesiastical bodies.165
This created the impression that the Christian East was properly represented at the
council. Nevertheless, this was a false impression.166 In reality, an elite group represented
the Christian East at Ferrara and Florence from Constantinople. By the time of CF,
Constantinople was living through the final chapters of its former glory; it was only a
symbol of the Christian East. The claims of its Patriarch were still taken seriously, but
they were no longer enforceable by the majority of the Christians of traditions that are
now known as Eastern Orthodox.
Together with Joseph II, the Patriarch of Constantinople, there were over 30
eastern metropolitans, including as legates patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, and
Alexandria. Nevertheless, despite their diverse titles, almost all of them were from the
same select group of Constantinople’s ecclesiastical elite. As mentioned earlier, in order
to achieve needed representation and give the rightful place at CF to the best minds and
164
Syropoulos cites John VIII lengthy speech on the validity of CF, including finding that the
participant “teachers” at the council are comparable to Cyril of Alexandria or Gregory of Nazianzus. He
stated “I view this holy and ecumenical council to be no less that any earlier.” Сиропул, Воспоминания,
IX:22, 257.
165
Сиропул, Воспоминания, III:3, 63.
166
For detail analysis, see Papadakis, The Christian East, 392-393.
58
scholars in from this circle, Joseph II hastily consecrated Isidore as the metropolitan of
Kyiv and all Rus’, Mark Eugenicus as the bishop of Ephesus and Bessarion as
metropolitan of Nicea. At one time or another, all three of them acted as the legates of the
ancient Patriarchates as well.167 Together with their Emperor, one of this group’s interests
was the saving of the Empire that by that time was reduced to the dying city of
Constantinople with population of no more than 50,000.168
Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of the Christians that this group took
upon itself to represent, lived either under the Muslim rule, or in Slavic nations of
Bulgaria, Serbia, Kyivan and Muscovite Rus’ and others. Due to the difficulties with the
recognition of its Patriarchate, the Serbian Church was not present at CF. Members of the
Constantinople’s elite represented other Slavic nations. Isidore might have been a
brilliant theologian and a man of action, but he was not even closely in touch with the
people of his ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Georgia had one bishop and one layperson at the
Council; evidently, they did not know what was going on and withdrew themselves from
the process at some point of the council.169 As for those Christians who grew accustomed
by the life under the Muslim rule – which turned to be at times an easier burden to
tolerate than the orthodox Byzantine’s rule – after the Council’s conclusion, they saw no
167
Сиропул, Воспоминания, III:23, 74.
168
Norwich, Byzantium: The Decline and Fall, 408.
169
Syropoulos calls Georgian bishop an “uneducated barbarian” and a “simple man, “while
praising his down to earth approach and logic. According to Syropoulos, this bishop showed the Greek
delegation a letter from Patriarch of Antioch that prescribes that no changes should be made to the Creeds.
When the bishop found that “the union is going to be achieved in a bad manner,” he mortgages his most
valuable possessions, gave the rest to the poor and “pretended to be mad.” When the Greek delegation
arrived in Venice on the way back to Constantinople, they found that the bishop wondered through Italy
and is sick in Modena. Serbian metropolitan brought him back to Venice, where the Georgian bishop
“come to his senses,” got his money back, and “returned with us.” The second Georgian representative,
George Iver (nephew of Georgian King Alexander) simply left to Rome upon discovering “how the
unification will be achieved.” Сиропул, Воспоминания, IX:26-29, 260-262.
59
reason why they should sacrifice the doctrines of their faith to save the foreign Empire.
Let us not forget that Christians constituted the majority of the army of Sultan Mehmed II
that conquered Constantinople in 1453. Even in Constantinople, there were clear signs
that the populace preferred to live under the Muslim rule than under Latins.170
Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox both list Mark Eugenicus as the
individual who became the embodiment of the resistance of the orthodox masses against
the Union. For this, he received canonization by the Eastern Orthodox Church. As one
historian states, “Mark Eugenikos may have been in a minority of one at Florence. But
once back in Constantinople he quickly discovered that he was a hero and a confessor for
the faith.”171
Mark Eugenicus arrived with John VIII Palaiologos and the majority of the
delegation to Constantinople on February 1st 1440. Although it is hard to verify the
historicity, various contemporary to CF Greek authors describe that when the delegation
barely departed the ships, the populace of Constantinople immediately inquired them
about the results of their mission.172 There is plenty of evidence that Greek masses
suspected from the beginning that their bishops had sold their faith to the Rome. In
addition, these who did not participate in the Council but were in the position of the
power within the church, started boycotting those who returned from the Council. They
simply refused to participate in Eucharist with the unionists. Allegedly, immediately
170
А.В. Занемонец, Иоанн Евгеник, 54; 57-58.
171
172
Norwich quotes Ducas, who stated that the metropolitans replied: “ We have sold our faith; we
have exchanged true piety for impiety; we have betrayed the pure sacrifice and become upholders of
unleavened bread.” Norwich, Byzantium, 408.
60
upon the arrival, the members of the delegation stated that they had sold their orthodox
faith due to their fear of the “Francs,” pressure, and bribes.173 Most clerics soon expressed
their regret for the decision and declared that if the people wish, they could cut off their
tongues, since they confessed heresy. The offer extended to hands which they signed the
decree of the Council.174 Ten years after CF, only four members of the original delegation
remained to be faithful to the Union.175 The populace of Constantinople had already
“made up their minds that the Union of Florence was a shameful business” and the Greek
signatories were “shunned as traitors who had sold their souls to the Latins.”176 This
might be at least to some degree the result of epistolary work of Mark’s brother, John
Eugenicus. After prolonged pleas, John obtained permission by the Patriarch to depart
Florence on September 14, 1438. Hence, he left the Council prior to its conclusion and
upon reaching Constantinople immediately began work on defeating its probable
Union.177
John VIII Palaiologos did not take much action to enforce the union. Upon
arriving in Constantinople, he learned about the death of his beloved second wife Maria,
the daughter of Alexius IV of Trebizond. Although she passed away earlier, no one dared
to pass him the news of her demise until the Emperor had reached Constantinople. 178 It
173
Syropoulos explicitly writes about the bribes that were paid for the signatures, including that
some of those who got the money could not and did not live their signatures on Laetentur Caeli since they
“did not belong to the rank of signatories.” Сиропул, Воспоминания, X:8, 274.
174
Syropoulos describes that the metropolitan of Anthony of Heraclea (when he was persuaded to
be the candidate for the Patriarchal dignity) stated:” my hand that signed [the decree] should be cut off.”
Сиропул, Воспоминания, XII:4, 319.
175
176
177
А.В. Занемонец, Иоанн Евгеник,17-19.
178
61
appears the Emperor’s grief resulted in a prolonged depression that did not end until the
day JohnVIII Palaiologos died.179
Syropoulos writes that the Emperor locked himself in the palace for 3 month and
took no actions whatsoever on political of ecclesiastical matters while “these who were
left in Constantinople [not attended CF] were gaining solid ground and winning over
those who came from the Council.”180 Moreover, the Emperor was a well-educated
theologian himself. John VIII Palaiologos apparently concluded for himself that by
attempting to save Byzantium, he compromised the faith.181 All we know about John VIII
Palaiologos leads to the conclusion that he took seriously his sacred role as the defender
of the orthodox faith.182 Syropoulos’ Memoirs are full of accounts of the Emperor’s
painful dilemma: on one side, he offered high praise for John VIII Palaiologos, his
“valor, wisdom,… humble heart”, while admitting that the Emperor was the main force
for driving the Greeks to sign Laetentur Caeli.183 Nevertheless, even his own brother
Demetrious, Despotate of the Morea, did not accept Union. 184 Demetrious used his
faithfulness to orthodoxy to raise a rebellion against John VIII Palaiologos. Turks
supported the rebellion, but it still failed.185
Syropoulos describes this as one of the reasons why the union failed. Сиропул,
179
Воспоминания, XII:17, 332.
180
Сиропул, Воспоминания, XII:4, 319.
181
The charge is often repeated in Eastern Orthodox polemical literature. For example, see Н.А.
Смирнов, История о Достопямятном Флорентийском Собор (Москва: Книги по Требованию,
2012) Reprint from (Санкт-Петербург: При Святейшем Правительствующем Синоде, 1805), 7.
182
Сиропул, Воспоминания, VI:21, 161; VII:15, 193; VIII:11, 216-217; IX:8, 247.
183
Сиропул, Воспоминания, II:4, 24; VI:9, 149; X:12, 278-282.
184
Сиропул, Воспоминания, IX:24-25, 258-260.
185
Norwich, Byzantium: The Decline, 424.; Nicol, The Last Centuries, 360.
62
Meanwhile Mark Eugenicus did not spare time or energy to fight for his cause.
His name quickly became the symbol of the popular movement to repeal the Union.186
Nevertheless, among the list of his supporters in Constantinople there is not even single
bishop or highly placed member of the Emperor’s palace. In part, this forced Mark to flee
the Constantinople on May 5th, 1440 to his episcopal see in Ephesus, under the control of
the Turks. He remained there to be the leader of the anti-unionist movement until his
death from cancer in the summer of 1445. After Mark Eugenicus’ death, this role was
taken by Gennadius Scholarius.
In the intervening time, the Greeks had to choose a new patriarch. The proponents
of the Union and their opponents saw the figure of the next patriarch as the main goal of
the battle. John VIII Palaiologos had three candidates, presented by the Church. He
rejected one and allowed the bishops to decide between two others. Metrophanes of
Cyzicus won the majority; John VIII Palaiologos soon invested him. The new Patriarch
was a strong proponent of the Union. He insisted that diptychs include the Pope during
the liturgy. This created a strong negative reaction among the opponents of the union
within the highest ranks of the Eastern Church. Many of them – with or without
permission – left Constantinople and continued their coordinated attacks from places that
were outside of the reach of the Emperor.
It was not easy to be Metrophanes. In 1440, a number of the Greek signatories of
Laetentur Caeli produced a “manifesto repudiating the union and refusing to
186
The far reaching image of Mark is evident in an apologia written around 1458 by monk Simeon
of Sudal’. Simeon writes a miraculous tale of how he reached Rus’ after fleeing Venice after CF. In a
dream, venerable Sergius told him to bring to all orthodox people “instructions from Saint Mark.” Hence,
Mark Eugencus was already referred as “saint” in Moskovian Rus’ little over a decade after his death.
Ф.Д.Делекторский, Критико-Библиографический Обзор, 142.
63
commemorate the Pope in the Liturgy.”187 Since the Emperor kept his attention elsewhere
and did not respond to the new Patriarch’s requests, Metrophanes secluded himself in his
monastery and refused to perform services at Hagia Sophia during the Lent. In order to
prevent having Holy Week and Easter without services, John VIII Palaiologos conceded:
if Metrophanes returned, the Emperor would do his duties to set the order where the
Patriarch had no reach or authority. Nevertheless, due to a late emergency, John VIII
Palaiologos’s attention had to be channeled to other area.188 Metrophanes did what he
could: appointed and consecrated pro-Union bishops and once more used the same old
method (self-exile to monastery) to force John VIII Palaiologos to action. This time the
Emperor called for a new synod that would include proponents and opponents of the
Union to settle the troubling issues. Meanwhile Metrophanes passed away on August 1st,
1443.
By this time, Mark of Ephesus passed away. Meanwhile, after years of support for
the Union or just silence on the issue, George Scholarious emerged as a leader of anti-
unionist movement. A leading Greek intellectual of his era, Scholarious held the position
of the General Secretary to John VIII Palaiologos and General Judge of the Greeks.
Although originally he was one of the main proponents of the Union, Mark of Ephesus
won Scholarious’ support by the plea at his deathbed. Gill describes George Scholarious
to be “in spite of all his many high qualities” as an “ambitious, vain and self-centered”
individual.189 He made the promise to a dying Mark to become the champion of
187
On Saturday before the Easter, Paul Asan escaped Constantinople to Demetrious of Mesambria
188
who wanted to marry Paul’s daughter (she run away with her father). According to Gill, “Demetrious’ act
implied…rebellion.” Gill, The Council, 353.
189
64
“orthodoxy”; this promise “he never forgot and…fulfilled till his death.”190 Hence, when
the Emperor called for the series of debates in the Xylalas palace, George Scholarious
represented the anti-unionist party within the Greek Church. There were fifteen such
meetings from August 1444 to November 1445. Although both sides claimed the victory
at Xylalas, the proponents of the Union still had the real power in Constantinople and
outranked the opponents. Hence, after the death of John VIII Palaiologos, George
Scholarious went to a monastery. There he took monastic vows in 1450 under the name
Gennadius.
It is unclear what occurred in ecclesiastical circles of the Byzantine Empire after
his death and the election of Gregory III Mammas as the new Patriarch of Constantinople
in 1444 or 1445. Gregory was as strong supporter of the Union, as was Metrophanes.
Nevertheless, under the pressure from anti-unionists, Gregory left Constantinople to
Rome in 1451; he never returned. Nicol describes this period before the demise of
Byzantium in eloquent prose: “there was a Church but no Patriarch. There was an
Emperor, but no Empire.”191
Before his death in 1448 C.E., the Emperor was torn by internal splits within the
dying Empire and the threat of the final and imminent attach by the Turks. Theodore
succeeded John VIII Palaiologos for three months. On January 6th, 1449 Constantine
became the last Emperor. The new Emperor understood that to save Constantinople, he
had to seek help from the West. He immediately and desperately started to seek such
assistance. Although Constantine did his best to find common ground with the opponents
190
191
65
of the Union, his efforts were in vain. The anti-unionists openly refused to acknowledge
him as the legitimate Emperor.192 They indeed preferred Turkish turban to the Latin
mitre.”193
Others among the secular elites of Constantinople treated both unionists and anti-
unionists in the same way: they attended churches of both persuasions as though there
were no split at all. Yet, since Gregory III Mammas’ flee to Rome occurred in 1451, it
would be reasonable to assume that by this time the anti-unionists had an upper hand.
Around the same time Bryennius Leontaris, Constantine’s ambassador to the Pope,
brought a letter from a synod of anti-unionists, in which they rejected Laetentur Caeli
and proposed to call a new Ecumenical Council in Constantinople. In this council, a
small delegation will represent the Western Church. This group declared that they would
accept any decision of the proposed council.
Instead of replying to this group, the Pope answered Constantine. The letter was
firm and strict. The Pope acknowledged that Constantinople had severe struggles. Yet,
pointed out that the Greeks should view them as punishment from God for their
disloyalty to a hard-fought Union between Christian East and West. After Florence, there
is only one Church with its head in Rome, not two. Hence, the Byzantine Empire should
recall the Patriarch Gregory from Rome and reinstall him. For those who did not
understand Pope’s theological position, there was only one provision: come to Rome and
get an additional instruction on the one valid Faith. Obviously, Pope’s ultimatum did not
work.
192
193
66
The situation changed when the Mahmed II started knocking on the doors of
Constantinople. Even Eastern Orthodox historians report that in 1452-1453 the Unionists
liturgies did not lack attendance.194 On December 12th 1452, the Union was officially
proclaimed in Hagia Sophia under the leadership of Isidore of Kyiv.195 There was a grand
liturgy celebrated in Hagia Sophia with the Emperor, bishops, and people of the city
present. The Pope and the rightful Constantinople Patriarch Gregory “were
commemorated in the diptychs and prayed for, and the decrees of union of the Council of
Florence proclaimed.” 196 Nevertheless, even at this time, there was lack of clarity over
whether this acceptance was permanent or whether it would hold sway only until the
removal of the Ottoman threat. Both Latin and Greek sources indicate that by this time
“the people (demos) had accepted union, presumably by some public decision.”197 It was
too late: on May 29th, 1453 Constantinople fell. Eventually, Hagia Sophia became a
mosque.
Three days after the Fall of Constantinople, on the orders of Mehmed II, George
Scholarius (Gennadius) was found, brought to the sultan, and invested with the symbols
of the Patriarchal office.198 His enthronement as Gennadius II occurred in January of the
next year in the Church of the Holy Apostles.199 Gennadius became the first patriarch of
194
195
А.В. Занемонец, Иоанн Евгеник, 65; Norwich, Byzantium: The Decline, 438, 454-455. Nicole,
writing about Scholarious’ protests, comments that “ the sound of Turkish guns firing in the Bosporos
beyond the city wall was more effective than the tirades of Gennadios.” Nicol, The Last Centuries, 377.
196
197
On Gennadius II, see recent work A.B. Занемонец, Геннадий Схоларий, Патриарх
198
Константинопольский,(1454-1456). (Москва: Библейско-Богословский Институт Св. Апостола

Андрея, 2010).
199
Norwich, Byzantium: The Decline, 465.
67
the Greek Orthodox Church under the Muslim rule. It is interesting that the Union itself
was never officially dissolved by the Greeks.200 Later generations of Eastern Orthodox
attempted to repair this by creating the legend of so-called Jerusalem Council with
participation of three Eastern Patriarchs sometimes in 1443.201 Nevertheless, the historical
consensus suggests that this council never occurred.202 The same is true of the legendary
Council of Constantinople of 1450.203
Another interesting chapter of the post-CF development comes from Gennadius
Scholarius’ actions and letters. Some in the East thought that under the rule of Sultan and
the status of millet, the Orthodox Church could return to pre-Constantine status of being
independent from the Empire.204 This was soon to change. Turks established the control
over ecclesiastical appointments as an important source of their revenue. Ecclesiastical
offices came with monetary price attached. 205 Moreover, under the system of millet, the
Patriarch became the holder of much of the temporal power over the orthodox faithful.
Ironically, the Patriarchs in East received as a heavy burden something that Popes in
West had fought to gain.
200
201
А.В. Занемонец, Иоанн Евгеник,47; Смирнов, История, 85.; for more details on this alleged
council, see Ostroumov, The History, 168-170.
202
203
For description of this alleged council, see Ostroumov, The History ,176-177. For the
arguments that it is much later forgery, see В.М. Лурье, Русское Православие между Киевом и Москвой
(Москва: Три Квадрата, 2009), 42-43.
204
Sherrard, The Greek East, 98.
205
Sherrard, The Greek East,101-104.
68
In 1455 Gennadius II wrote a letter to the monks in Sinai in response to their
letter requesting clarification on a number of questions.206 It appears that the monks
suspected the Patriarch of Jerusalem of simony. Gennadius II instructed the monks to be
obedient to their Patriarch and accept the reality that the ecclesiastical posts are sold since
“there is no other way.”207 The Patriarch of Constantinople added that the same has been
occurring under his jurisdiction for about 50 years, adding that it is a “big sin.”
Nevertheless, Gennadius draws one distinction: in Jerusalem, the Patriarch has to pay the
Muslims for the privilege to hold ecclesiastical office, while in Constantinople, “those
who buy and sell are all Christians.”208 It would be reasonable to assume that immediately
after the Ottoman occupation the Turks had not established tight control over the
ecclesiastical affairs of the Constantinople’s Patriarchate.209 Gennadius II proceeds by
stating that “each who gives concession in a small matter for safeguarding the
wholeness, has an apostolic intention.”210 In other words, Gennadius did not mind to
practicing teleological approach wherein “the end justifies the means” when it was
needed.
Gennadius II also made detailed instructions on how to treat those who accepted
the Union. In his letters, he gives very clear advice on how to proceed when a Uniat
cleric desires to return to orthodoxy. Based on the practice of his jurisdiction, Gennadius
This and other letters of Gennadius Scholarius are translated into Russian from Greek and cited
206
from А.В. Занемонец, Иоанн Евгеник, 132-152 and A.B. Занемонец, Геннадий Схоларий, Патриарх
Константинопольский,103-149.
207
А.В. Занемонец, Иоанн Евгеник,136-137.
А.В. Занемонец, Иоанн Евгеник,136
208
209
On the contrary, Papadakis points that the jurisdiction and the real power of the Patriarch of
Constantinople was enlarged under the Ottoman Empire. Papadakis, The Christian East, 412.
210
69
II advises that such cleric shall “repent, confess and give promise” not to return to the
Union. When this is done, the Patriarch instructs that the faithful shall “accept him as a
priest and co-celebrate [the liturgy] with him.” 211 On the other hand, those who continued
to co-celebrate with the Latins or Uniats received no understanding or any acceptance by
the Patriarch.212 In strong language, he forbids any prayer with them; it should occur
under no circumstances. Some orthodox had their child baptized in the Latin Church and
then raise him\her as an orthodox. Gennadius II calls this practice to be “beyond all evil”
and an act “full of unlawfulness.”213 It appears that the Patriarch was willing to close his
eyes when the situation required and take Uniats back due to the challenges of the times.
Nevertheless, he understood that going easy on those who wanted to “play both hands”
would lead to the eventual defeat of the Orthodox Church.
Conclusion
At the end, CF remains a story of the grand failure. Both Christian East and West
came to the Council with broad and often mistaken preconceptions. Debates at CF clearly
demonstrated the need of detailed study each other’s “universe.” Cultural divides,
linguistic issues, methodological differences – they all played significant role in the
overall failure of the Union.
One could point to the success that Rome had with other oriental orthodox
Churches. After all, there was no difference on West’s approach in negotiations with
them versus the delegation from Byzantium. If anything, Rome took much more
211
212
А.В. Занемонец, Иоанн Евгеник,138,143-145.
213
70
patronizing role with the Orientals than with the Greeks. Yet, the former did not share
the universal ambitions of the ecclesiastical superiority of the latter. Orientals looked
upon Rome as their older brother, primus inter pares. The Greeks viewed the Latins as
semi-barbarians with great economic and military power, lacking proper patristic
Tradition and classical Greek philosophy.214 The wretched heritage of the Sack of
Constantinople by the crusaders and cultural antagonism towards the Latins by the
Byzantium’s masses made the prospect of Union highly unlikely.
Of course, the insistence by Rome on its ecclesiastical primacy did not help
either. The Greeks perceived “submission to papal authority” as nothing less than the
“prelude to assimilation by the Latins.” 215At the end, they chose to submit to Ottomans,
instead of Rome.
Ultimately, the Christian East and West did not properly meet at Ferrara and
Florence. The two sides of the divide did not engage with each other, nor did they
confront the true underlying issues behind the schism. It was a wasted opportunity to
reunite the two main branches of the Apostolic Church. An opportunity that Church yet
to receive again since 1439.
214
For example, Pletho diplomatically pointed to the Western Humanists on the “lack of sound
learning and of qualifications to appreciate Plato and Aristotle.” Sevcenko, “Intellectual Repercussions,”
291.
215
71
WORKS CITED
Cherniavsky, Michael. “The Reception of the Council of Florence in Moscow.” Church

History 24, no.4 (December 1955): 347-59.
Pontifico Instituto Orientale. “Concilium Florentinum.” Edizioni Orientalia Christiana.

Accessed November 4, 2014. http://www.orientaliachristiana.it/other-
publications-it.htm.
Chadwick, Henry. East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church From Apostolic
Times Until the Council of Florence. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Dvornik, Francis. The Slavs in European History and Civilization. New Jersey, NJ:
Rutgers University Press, 1962.
Durant, Will. Caesar and Christ: A History of Roman Civilization and of Christianity
from their beginnings to A.D. 325. The Story of Civilization: Part III. New York,
NY: Simon and Schuster, 1944.
Geanakoplos, Deno. “The Council of Florence (1438-1439) and the Problem of Union
Between the Greek and Latin Churches.” Church History 24, no.4 (December
1955): 324-46.
Gill, Joseph. The Council of Florence. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press, 1959.
__________. Personalities of the Council of Florence. New York, NY: Barnes & Noble,
1964.
Hryniewicz, Waclaw. The Challenge of Our Hope: Christian Faith in Dialogue, Polish
Philosophical Studies, VII, Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Change Series
IVA, Eastern and Central Europe. Vol. 32, general editor George F.
McLean.Washington, D.C: The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy,
2007.
Hussey, Joan Mervyn. The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, 1986.
Juvenal. “Satires.” Lapham’s Quarterly, 8, no.1 (Winter 2015): 136-137.
Sevcenko, Igor. “Intellectual Repercussions of the Council of Florence.” Church History

24, no.4 (December 1955): 291-323.
Sherrard, Philip. The Greek East and the Latin West: A Study in the Christian Tradition.
Limni, Evia, Greece: Denise Harvey, 1959.
72
73
Siecienski, Edward. The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy.Oxford, NY:

Oxford University Press, 2010.
_______________. “The Authenticity of Maximus the Confessor’s Letter to Marinus: the

Argument from Theological Consistency.” Vigiliae Christianae, 61, no.2 (May
2007): 189-227.
Louth, Andrew. Greek East and Latin West: The Church AD 681-1071. The Church in
History. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2007.
Martin, Janet. Medieval Russia: 980-1584. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press,
1995.
Meyendorff, John. Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church AD 450-680. The
Church in History. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1989.
Norwich, John Julius. Byzantium: The Early Centuries. London: The Folio Society, 2005.
Nicol, Donald M. The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453. Cambridge, United

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Nichols, Aidan. Rome and the Eastern Churches, 2nd edition. San Francisco, CA:
Ignatius Press, 2010.
Ostroumov, Ivan. The History of the Council of Florence, edited by Rev. J.M.Neale.
London: Joseph Masters, 1861. Reprint by Charleston, SC: Bibliolife, 2009.
Papadakis, Aristeides. The Christian East and the Rise of Papacy: The Church AD 1071-
1453.” The Church in History. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 1994.
(Гетте), Архимандрит Владимир. Папство как Причина Разделения Церквей.

Москва: ФондИВ, 2007.
Делекторский,Ф.Д. Критико-Библиографический Обзор Древнерусских Сказаний о

Флорентийской Унии. Москва: Книги по Требованию, 2011. Reprint from
Журнал Министерства Народного Просвещения. Седьмое Десятилетие.
Июль 1895.
Занемонец, А.В. Геннадий Схоларий, Патриарх Константинопольский (1454-

1456). Москва: Библейско-Богословский Институт Св. Апостола Андрея,
2010.
______________. Иоанн Евгеник и Православное Сопротивление Флорентийской

Унии. Санкт-Петербург: Алетейя, 2008.
74
Лурье, В.М. Русское Православие между Киевом и Москвой. Москва: Три

Квадрата, 2009.
Мейендорф, И.Ф. “Флорентийский Собор: Причины Исторической Неудачи.” In Из

Истории Русской Культуры. Т.Н. Кн.1. Киевская и Московская Русь,
состaвители А.Ф. Литвина, Ф.Б.Успенский, 397-414. Москва: Языки
Славянской Культуры, 2002.
Пржегорлинский, Священник Александр. Византийская Церковь на Рубеже XIII-

XIVвв. Санкт-Петербург: Алетейя, 2011.
Сиропул, Сильвестр. Воспоминания о Ферраро-Флорентийском Соборе (1438-

1439) в 12 Частях. Санкт-Петербург: Издательство Олега Абышко 2010.
Смирнов, Н.А. История о Достопямятном Флорентийском Соборе. Москва:

Книги по Требованию, 2012. Reprint from Санкт-Петербург: При Святейшем
Правительствующем Синоде, 1805.
Твори Кардинала Йосифа Верховного Архиєпископа (Opera Omnia Card. Josephi

(Slipyj Kobernyckyj-Duckovskij) archepiscopi maioris). 1:107-8. Rome:
Universitas Ucrainorum a S. Clemente Papa, 1968.
75
ADDITIONAL REFERENCE MATERIAL
Dvornik, Francis. The Slavs in European History and Civilization. New Jersey, NJ:
Rutgers University Press, 1962.
Martin, Janet. Medieval Russia: 980-1584. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press,
1995.
Пржегорлинский, Священник Александр. Византийская Церковь на Рубеже XIII-

XIVвв. Санкт-Петербург: Алетейя, 2011.
76
As author of this MTS Project\Master’s Thesis, I, _________________, grant permission
to the Library of Phillips Theological Seminary to provide a photocopy or an electronic copy (in a
stable pdf or other format) of the Report\Thesis to any requesting institution or individual with
the understanding that it be for scholarly use only.
(Signature)
(Date)
77
WARNING CONCERNING COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making
of photocopies or other reproduction of copyrighted material.
Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to
furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the
photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study,
scholarship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or
reproduction for purposes in excess of “far use,” that user may be liable for copyright
infringement.

Dezhnyuk Sergey - Council of Florence. The Unrealized Union

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dezhnyuk Sergey - Council of Florence. The Unrealized Union

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dezhnyuk Sergey - Council of Florence. The Unrealized Union

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COUNCIL OF FLORENCE: THE UNREALIZED UNION

Sergey Fedorovich Dezhnyuk

Submitted to the Faculty

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

Masters of Theological Studies

Phillips Theological Seminary

CHAPTER 1: THE COUNCIL...................................................................................................................1

realities of the schism.

Απομνημονευματα), written by Sylvester Syropoulos, a megas ecclesiarches (fifth

ecclesiastical office in patriarchal hierarchy) and a deacon at Hagia Sophia.3 Both

brother of Mark Eugenicus and holder of the position of nomophylax in Constantinople’s

subject, his Memoirs unquestionably provide priceless perspective on CF by the Christian

the name of Sophronius Syropoulos (April 1st 1462-1464).6

Accurate terminology is another challenge in writing on CF. In this work,

West/Latins means Roman Catholic Church; East/Greeks means Eastern Orthodox

catholic, and apostolic Church.

with, especially, papal authority.10

It is hard to overstate the importance of CF to the history of Christianity. This was

when Reformation was just around the corner.

Context of the Council: Theological Divide and Time of the Schism

admittance of this estrangement; theological differences played an important, but

schism between the Christian East and West is paramount.13

of Church’s history, including non-chalcedonian Christians. Namely, most of the cardinal

intellectual context. Moreover, there has always been difficulty to reconcile

and manifested its unfortunate importance during CF.15

different points of theological perspective could explain their differences.17

justification. Hence, the whole Western theological discourse, including Reformation,

could be seen as disagreements on how to interpret various points within Augustinian

that found in various liturgical expressions.18 Based on the Cappadocian paradigm of

Simultaneously, it is balanced by the progression of the upward movement of the

reunion were conducted. Geanakoplos, “The Council of Florence,” 324.

for clergy to shave their beards, etc.

the Union of 1439 C.E as schismatics.

the destiny of the highest altar of the Hagia Sophia.

monks were imprisoned; Latin rite became mandatory in all churches.29

It is impossible to overstate the impact of the events of 1204 on the preparation,

merely alternation of Orthodox dogma, but…loss of national identity, in other words

Latinizaton of the Greek people.”30

by Greeks as happening yesterday. The brutal Latinization of Constantinople that lasted

because he spoke Latin. 33 Church hierarchies might have produced the

facto separation came as the result of the Fourth Crusade in 1204.34

schism despite this overwhelming historical burden. In 1334, the patriarch of

Constantinople selected Barlaam of Calabria to represent the position of the Greeks in

When this attempt failed, Byzantium Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos picked up

mainland. In contrast with Barlaam, Kantakouzenos wanted the council to engage in

comprehensive theological discussion on the doctrinal differences between the Greeks

Understandably, it was the conclusion of this chapter of negotiations.

with Paul of Smyrna, the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople. Kantakouzenos’ proposal

theological discussion on such forum, Kantakouzenos proposed that it should be attended

archbishops of both Christian West and East. Particularly, he mentioned metropolitans of

unconditional obedience to the see of Rome.39

on agreement with Council of Constance’s Sacrosancta, which prescribed frequent

Orthodox repeat Syropoulos’ charges.44

time for these high hopes to be crushed.

Preparations for the Council

to strengthen his role and rule in both West and East.50

from holding an Ecumenical Council.

Patriarch of Constantinople Joseph II and Byzantine Emperor John VII Palaiologos.57 At