Oriental Orthodox in Ecumenical Dialogues 1

I. Introduction

In 1995, Pope John Paul II gave bold support for the ecumenical movement.[1] He was quite clear: Christians should strive for unity, not because it was his own personal desire, but because it was Jesus’ will:

Jesus himself, at the hour of his Passion, prayed ‘that they may all be one’ (Jn 7:21). This unity, which the Lord has bestowed on his Church and in which he wishes to embrace all people, is not something added on, but stands at the very heart of Christ’s mission. Nor is it some secondary attribute of the community of his disciples. Rather, it belongs to the very essence of this community. God wills the Church, because he wills unity, and unity is an expression of the whole depth of this agape.[2]

For centuries Christians had read Jesus’ prayer for Christian unity. But, as history shows us, it did not become a motivating factor, and they did not engage it as a matter of praxis. Rivalries for power and dissentions in beliefs quickly formed within the Church. While one might point out the political struggles which helped form great divisions between Christians, and use that to suggest that such division existed because of lone individuals who thirsted for power, this would be a simplified and unjust examination of the situation We must be willing to recognize that good Christians, not seeking glory or power, but seeking truly to understand their faith, did have different views of that faith, and the reasons for these differences are as complex as the personalities involved. As we shall discover, recognizing this very fact has been, and continues to be, one of the fruits of ecumenical dialogue. This is quite noticeable when one examines the division between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches.[3]

While it is true that the Council of Ephesus made the first major ecclesial division,[4] there is no doubt that there is something special about Chalcedon, and the division which it created was of a greater nature than what occurred at Ephesus. For those who accepted Chalcedon’s authority, its Christological definition became the normative explanation for how one was to proclaim the personage of Jesus Christ. It was an imperative for them (the Catholic Church and most of the Western tradition, and the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches) to follow the tenets of Chalcedon: Jesus Christ is the second person of the divine Trinity, fully divine and fully human, indivisibly one in hypostasis and without confusion in his two natures.[5] Those who rejected Chalcedon did so because they understood it as being fundamentally flawed and Nestorian in its content. For over fifteen hundred years, Chalcedon has been a dividing line which neither side has been willing to step beyond.

II Encounters and Dialogues Before 1951

Despite what occurred at Chalcedon, there have been several attempts throughout the years where one side or the other of the Chalcedonian divide tried to find an amicable solution and resolution to their theological conflict. It is also interesting to note that the rupture between the Orthodox and Catholic churches that emerged after Chalcedon helped to create ways by which both the Orthodox and the Catholics were able to enter into dialogue with one or more of the Oriental Orthodox churches.

We can see how this worked out before the modern era by looking at one of the particular Oriental Orthodox Churches: the Armenian Apostolic Church. Catholicos Karekin I’s article “Ecumenical Trends in the Armenian Church,” offers us a great amount of information. In it, he explains that the Armenian Church did not find itself entirely isolated from the rest of the Christian world (and the same can be said about most of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches, to one degree or another).[6] “Despite times of bitter controversy and confrontation, relations were pursued with the Greek and Georgian churches, with the Byzantine patriarchate of Constantinople and with Syriac communities.”[7]

Probably the most interesting example of this can be found during the twelfth century. In 1165, the Armenian Bishop Nerses the Gracious (later, the Armenian primate) had a Christological dialogue with Duke Alexis, a representative of the Byzantine Emperor.[8] Alexis was so impressed of what he heard that he asked for a written exposition and record of their dialogue. Nerses accepted the request, and he wrote what the Armenians call the Pontifical Letter of St Nerses the Gracious. Both the Byzantine Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople were intrigued by the position of Bishop Nerses, and they wanted an active dialogue with the Armenians. They believed it would be possible to bring both churches back into communion with each other. The dialogue went from 1165 through 1179, when it ended at the time of the Emperor’s death. There were many ecumenical advances that foreshadow the trends of modern dialogues. For example, the Armenian and Byzantine churches saw that the Christological caricatures each side had placed against each other had been wrong, and that neither side was heretical.[9]

On the other end of the spectrum, the Western Church actively began a reengagement with the Armenians during the Crusades. There was, as Karekin I points out, a lot of political motivation behind the Armenian dialogue with the West: “[...] the kings and political authorities of Cilician Armenia, for example, encouraged an ecclesiastical rapprochement with the West, in the hope and expectation that Western principalities would thereby extend assistance to support the Armenian kingdom of Cilicia.”[10] Sadly, since the dialogue was mostly politically motivated, and as the political alliance that the Armenians desired did not surface, the dialogues ended up being merely controversial debates on doctrinal and liturgical differences without much success in creating a mutual understanding. Yet, we must remember, as Karekin points out, this does not mean there were not any fruitful aspects to this dialogue. “The exchange [...] became a source of enrichment to the Armenians, especially with regard to science and such arts as literature and manuscript illumination, but also in certain aspects of social life.”[11]

Before entering into the modern era, we should also briefly examine one of the more important ecumenical dialogues of the late medieval era, the Council of Florence in 1438 – 1445. While the dialogue and brief reunion between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is usually what people are interested about Florence, we must remember that the Oriental Orthodox were also present, although what was said was mostly in a side-dialogue with the Catholic Church.[12] John Meyendorff tell us that despite being a failure, the council itself “is of great theological significance.”[13] Even though the reason for the council could be seen as primarily political, nonetheless there was at the council itself a great and very active dialogue on the disputed questions between the churches. It represented both some of the best and worst approaches to ecumenism. The concessions that were had at the council by each side were many, and allowed for a great diversity of theological thought and liturgical traditions within the Church. The way the agreement had been made, mostly forced upon the East for aid against the Turks, also demonstrates to us that ecumenical unions are not always made for the right reason, nor are they always strong (as the quick demise of the union established at Florence shows).[14] Because of its failure, there is often a hesitancy by Orthodox theologians to believe that the solution to Christian division will be found within a new grand ecumenical council.

Footnotes

[1] Through the publishing of his encyclical Ut Unum Sint.
[2] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint Of the Holy Father John Paul II On Commitment to Ecumenism. Vatican translation (Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1995), paragraph 9.
[3] Those churches which are called the Oriental Orthodox Churches are the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Eritrean Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church, and the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church of India.
[4] Those who rejected the Council of Ephesus helped to form the Church of the East.
[5] See Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma. trans. Roy J. Deferrari (London: B. Herder Book Co., 1954), citation 148.
[6] It is true that the closer one of the Oriental Orthodox churches were to a different ecclesiastical community, the more interaction they would have with each other. They would share common regional problems (for example, what to do with Islam) and this would mean they had more reason to interact with each other and to support each other despite their differences.
[7] Catholicos Karekin I, “Ecumenical Trends in the Armenian Church” Ecumenical Review, vol. 51 (January 1999), 31.
[8] Ibid., 33.
[9] “A tacit consensus was actually reached that when the Armenians spoke of ‘one nature’ of Christ [...] they were neither confusing the two natures nor accepted one and rejecting the other [....] Conversely, when the Byzantines spoke of ‘two natures’, they were not separating Christ into two entities.” Ibid., 33.
[10] Ibid., 33.
[11] Ibid., 34.
[12] For example, see Denzinger citations 695 – 702 to read from the Decree for the Armenians.
[13] John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1974; second edition, 1983), 109.
[14] Despite its failure, the model established at Florence became the normative way that the Catholic Church interacted with the Eastern and Oriental Churches. “In the course of the last four centuries, in various parts of the East, initiatives were taken within certain churches and impelled by outside elements, to restore communion between the church of the East and the church of the West. These initiatives led to the union of certain communities with the See of Rome, and brought with them, as a consequence, the breaking of communion with their mother churches of the East. This took place not without the interference of extra-ecclesial interests. In this way Oriental Catholic Churches came into being.” Joint International Catholic-Orthodox Commission, “Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion,” (1993) chap. in The Quest for Unity: Orthodox and Catholics in Dialogue. ed. by John Borelli and John H. Erickson (Crestwood, N.Y.: Saint Vladimir Seminary Press,), paragraph 8.

From Schism to the Council of Florence: Part IV

IV Great Expectations for the Future

Both Lyons and Ferrara-Florence tend to be looked down upon because they were failures. It would be too facile to suggest that they were not. It can not be forgotten that as a response to Florence, both sides became more rigid in their formulations, and dialogue in its shadow has had to deal with what one should do with the council itself. To the West, it became the standard by which reunion with the East could occur.[1] To the East, it became the last example by which the West had proven it could not be trusted to keep to its promises. Yet, with the hindsight of history, we can now look back at the councils. If we look, not with a polemical eye, we can appreciate their positive achievements. We can recognize that some good was actually done at them.

Both councils provided a contact between the West and the East in a way which had not happened before. Even before their formal separation, communication between the Latins and the Greeks had been severely lacking. Without such contact, it was only a matter of time that unity would be terminated. Most Westerners lost the ability to read and understand Greek, and the East had no interest in Latin. The theological legacies and traditions which developed by both sides did so without the dialogue which was needed to keep themselves properly in balance with the rest of Christendom. Texts were rarely shared. Understanding was lost. It is no wonder that misunderstanding occurred, and theological debates would end up going in circles with participants not listening to each other.

However, we see something unique happening after Lyons. The cold, icy barrier separating the cultures began to thaw just a little, if only for the fact that each side had to learn to appreciate and understand the tradition of their opponents (even if they still rejected it). At Lyons, the East saw something it had not seen before: Latin scholasticism. Eastern theologians grew interested in it, and translations of the schoolmen from Latin into Greek began to take place.[2] Not all of the Greeks appreciated this development. Yet it is important to note that many of their leading figures took scholasticism seriously and found it a vital component of their own theological output.[3] This meant that many Latin authors, secular and Patristic, which had been neglected by the Greeks were finally introduced to and studied by the elite in the East.

Just as Lyons was able to introduce the Latin heritage to the East, so Florence was able to open up the long lost Greek heritage to the West. In an age where humanism was increasing, the interaction of the classical tradition in renaissance Italy became the spark which helped shape the modern world. When the philosopher Pletho was in Florence, he preached his brand of Neo-Platonic philosophy on the city streets. The people of Florence were impressed and Pletho enjoyed the warm attention and affection he received. Here, for the first time, the fullness of the Platonic tradition was being revealed to the West; it was no longer necessary for the West to hear the teachings of Plato second hand. Having been impressed by Pletho, the Medici desired to bring the whole Platonic corpus to the West. Texts were brought over by the aid of Bessarion. Marsilio Ficino was chosen to be their translator and interpreter.[4] Ficino’s role was not only that of being the Western expositor on Plato, but he became something else. Inspired by what he learned, he helped transform the world around him. The notion of Platonic love developed side by side with an appreciation for the arts. Indeed, Ficino, because of his understanding of beauty, was among those who helped raise the respect given to an artist so they would no longer be seen merely as a carpenter! Would the renaissance have been the same without the support given to the arts?

Equally important is the fact that the council of Florence helped attract Easterners to the West; some of them decided to stay and live in the West after the council ended. More than any other person, Bessarion saw how the West could help protect the doomed heritage of the East.[5] If Constantinople's fate was decided and its fall could not be prevented, there had to be a way to preserve its legacy. To Bessarian the answer lay in the West. Would Bessarion have considered this anwer and moved to Venice if he had not first been shown respect in Florence? Would he have thought it possible to protect and save Byzantine civilization in the West, if the council had occurred in Constantinople? His foresight helped give as much to Byzantium as it did to the West. Similar to what India has been for Tibet, Italy, and especially Venice, became for Byzantium. Within Turkish-controlled Byzantium, seminaries were closed, and this made proper clerical education nearly impossible.[6] And yet in Venice the possibility remained. Those who could get to Venice found Bessarion, and others like him, helped to pave the way for a proper education. It was not an entirely far-fetched proposal, especially since the Turks did not actively prevent it.[7] Byzantium lived abroad in its exiles.

While we can see the positive cultural impact both councils had, can we find any evidence of solid theological ramifications? Certainly. The Council of Lyons forced the East to actually reflect upon its pneumatology, and it can be said that some of their most profound writings on the procession of the Holy Spirit came as a reaction and response to Lyons.[8] It must also be remembered that at Florence the debates opened the West and the East to the differences in the Latin and Greek patristic legacy. Mark of Ephesus wanted to deny it by denying the texts; the council itself wanted to simplify it by saying the Fathers agreed. We now know that might not always be the case. But what could they do at a council? What other solutions could be reached with the evidence that was brought before the fathers of the council? None at the time, but it opened up the possibility that one could be found. Humanists in the West certainly would take this newfound revelation to heart, but they had the time which the council did not. And yet, there was at the council itself the first glimmer of a new awareness that perhaps the different theological traditions do contradict each other, and contradicted each other even before the schism; however, it was not a dogmatic contradiction, and these traditions could exist side by side as they did before. Indeed, some could say that it really was the mutual lack of charity which really brought about discord within the Church of Christ.

Also it must be seen that Florence also did another remarkable thing: it finally gave its final and full assent to the possibility of a plurality of rites and traditions within the Church. Prior to Florence, aspects of the differing liturgical practices between the Greeks and Latins often was the source of vehement polemics between the two parties. They believed their own liturgical tradition must be followed; indeed members of the West and the East often declared each other heretics based upon such different liturgical practices such as what kind of bread (leavened or unleavened) was being be used in the eucharist. The issue was taken up briefly at Florence, but the outcome was one of compromise: both sides recognized each other’s practice was legitimate! And now, after Florence, it can be said that “…today the problem of the bread of the eucharist might seem at most an indifferent question of liturgical custom and of and humanly established ecclesiastical discipline…”[9]

We have talked about Rome and Constantinople and how they were affected by the union councils. And yet this is a tale of three cities. What can we say about Moscow? Here the legacy of the councils must be seen as a mixed bag. On the one hand, the rise of Russia, and its emergence on the world scene can be seen as an effect of the fall of Constantinople. Its spirit was allowed to soar when it felt it no longer had to be held back from its bonds with Byzantium. As the triumphant daughter of Byzantium, it held onto the Byzantine heritage with zeal. At once this ascendancy put itself as a rival to Constantinople, brokering discord within the Orthodox world. Its rise and release from the Tatar Yoke was proper, but its fight with Constantinople certainly was a shame. To become Byzantium’s rival, it had to acquire and translate the theological and philosophical textbooks of Byzantium; it had to acquire a sophistication it had until that time lacked. Where could it turn for this?

Here we find the story of Maximus the Greek. Born in 1470, he traveled to Italy and lived there for a time studying under Ficino and Pico. For a brief period, he even became a Dominican monk in Florence; but he did not stay, and in 1504 he moved to Mt Athos.[10] From Athos, he was sent to Russia, where he was able to translate many important works from Greek into Slavonic. It was not an easy task. At first, he did not even know Slavonic. Yet he worked hard to learn it, and in the process became one of the most important intellectual links which united Russia with its Byzantine heritage. It is interesting to see how he was first and foremost a Greek who had been nurtured in Italy, in the diaspora. His unique qualifications came from the fact that Florence had helped usher in an age where the diaspora were welcome in the West, and that they were given a place to stay and be educated. Would Russia have found someone so properly suited to their needs, someone so capable as Maximus the Greek, if the Council of Florence did not inspire Bessarion and other exiles to stay behind?

What lessons can we learn from these councils for modern ecumenical dialogues? We can find several, but for issues of space, let us look at three of them. First and foremost, especially in the aftermath of Florence, it has been shown that a key to true ecumenical dialogue requires that is more than just talk and union “from above.” The laity need to have a significant role. Union is not to be achieved by merely having leaders come to theological agreements without the people understanding how and why those agreements were made. Not only are the laity needed in these dialogues, a desire for unity must also be nurtured within the laity as well. Without it, no matter how many agreements are made at a council, no true lasting unity will be possible.

Second, and connected to this, it is important to make sure that union is not attempted merely for political reasons. Such a union ends up being forced and contrived, and it will not last. We see this after both Lyons and Florence: when the populace rejected them, the Byzantine emperor tried to use force to squash the rebellion which followed. Today we might wonder why it was thought union could be achieved in this way. It might seem obvious to us that unity cannot be forced. Yet it was something we had to learn, and history has been our guide.

Third, it is fruitful to see that, despite the fact that the attempts for union failed, there was a desire for unity among Christians. The ecumenical movement is not a modern aberration as some “traditionalists” might want people to think. While this might seem obvious to some, to others, so worked up and caught up in their own traditions, it is not. Schisms go back to the time of the Apostles; so do the attempts to heal them. Human frailty often gets in the way. We can see Florence, because it was so close to making unity a reality, as a sign of hope. Even Mark of Ephesus, who disavowed the results of Florence, agreed that unity should be attempted. This perhaps explains why it came so close. And it gives us hope to this day. It shows us that in spite of all the controversies, strife and bitterness that have separated Christians from each other throughout the centuries, a desire for union continues and has not been destroyed. If it was preserved in the past, despite all the wrongs that have been perpetrated by members of both sides, it is something which can be built upon in the present time of charitable relations. Indeed, the fact that politics were not the only reason for which Florence was called might even demonstrate that a movement of the Spirit, the Spirit of truth and love, was at work at the time of the council. It was not listened to. Too much stood in the way. But yet . . . but yet there truly was a positive side of Florence. Agreements were made, resolutions passed, and true progress was achieved. If the Spirit could do that in the past, what more can it do today? There is a great desire for unity prevalent among many Christians today; even if ecumenical talks fail to resolve the divisions between the churches in our life time, perhaps, because of the greater charity shown between the churches, there will at least be a closing of the gaps which divide Christians from one another? We can at least hope and have some great expectations for the future.

Notes

[1] Thus, for example, the Union at Brest can be seen as a “regional attempt to revive the Union of Florence.” Waclaw Hryniewicz, “The Florentine Union Reception and Rejection: Some Reflections on Unionist Tendencies Among Ruthenians,” in Christian Unity: The Council of Ferrara-Florence 1438/9 – 1989, ed. Giuseppe Alberigo (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1991), 239.
[2] Deno John Geanakoplos, Interaction of the “Sibling” Byzantine and Western Cultures, 100.
[3] George Scholarius, for example, admired St Thomas Aquinas, and even worked to translate some of his works into Greek. See George A Maloney, S.J. A History of Orthodox Theology Since 1453 (Belmont, Massachusetts: Nordland Publishing Company, 1976), 92.
[4] See the introduction in Marsilio Ficino, Meditations on the Soul: Selected Letters of Marsilio Ficino. Trans. by the Language Department of the School of Economic Science, London (Rochester, Virginia: Inner Traditions International, 1996), xii.
[5] Deno John Geanakoplos, Interaction of the “Sibling” Byzantine and Western Cultures, 172-3.; 177-78.
[6] George A. Maloney, A History of Orthodox Theology, 100.
[7] Steven Runcimann, The Great Church in Captivity, 211.
[8] See Sergius Bulgakov, The Comforter, 100 -110 for a discussion of this period of theological debate within Byzantium.
[9] John H. Erickson, The Challenge of Our Past, 135.
[10] John Meyendorff, Rome Constantinople and Moscow, 140-41.

From Schism to the Council of Florence: Part III

III Hard Times

After Lyons, there were few talks between Greeks and Latins about ecclesiastical reunion. Probably the most important suggestion came from the opponent of St Gregory Palamas, Barlaam of Calabria. He suggested that an ecumenical council should be convened; unlike what had occurred at Lyons, he wanted it to be one in which theological dialogue could be had by all representatives of the classical Pentarchy.[1]

Very few were interested in such a council. The cultural and ecclesiastical realities made it impossible. The Greeks were still angered about the sacking of Constantinople, and they feared any official attempts for unity would follow what happened under Michael VIII. The Greeks also believed that their cultural heritage was at stake: they feared unity with Rome would end up with Rome forcing them to become Latins. The West did not believe that the primacy and authority of the Bishop of Rome could be questioned. To convene a council as the Greeks wanted was unacceptable, because it would be seen as a repudiation of Papal claims of authority. There was a stalemate, and no one wanted to give up any claims to the other side. It is by the accidental circumstances of history we can explain why the Council of Ferrara-Florence was convened. They also explain why it, “came near to success: so near, yet so far.”[2]

The Byzantine Empire was weak and indeed, one could say, dying. While it had been able to defend its borders against the West, this drained their resources so much that they were not able to do so against the Turks. Slowly but surely the Turks were advancing upon their lands. By the time of its end, the empire consisted of Constantinople and a few small and scattered territories.[3]John VIII, the emperor, saw the end was near unless something was done to stop the Turks once and for all. He needed Western aid. When he was asked if he were willing to participate in a union council with the Latins, he gave a conditional consent. The West would promise to help the empire, and more importantly, the council would have to follow the normative procedures of earlier ecumenical councils. It would be called by the emperor, and the theological differences which separated the Latins from the Greeks would have to be openly debated. Even though the Greeks would not automatically give way to the Latin arguments, John did imply that he would do what he could to bring about a conclusion to the council which satisfied the Latins.[4]

After Lyons, the West found its own situation deteriorating. The West had endured the internal Great Western Schism; unity was restored by the Council of Constance and the election of Martin V as Pope.[5] More importantly, Constance had issued a decree requiring the frequent convening of general councils.[6] After Constance, conciliarist ideas began circulating in the West. The first council called in wake of Constance was held at Pavia in 1423. It was moved to Siena because of an outbreak of the plague, and then dissolved in March 1424 due to poor attendance. In its dissolution, Pope Martin V declared that there would be a new council convened at Basel in 1431. Martin’s death delayed the start of the council until after Eugene IV was elected as his successor in the March of 1431. Basel begun its proceedings that June, only to have its leaders in an open and bitter fight with Eugene IV. The Pope tried to have the council dissolved by the December of that year. In the early battle between the Pope and the council, the Pope lost, and had to admit its continued existence, even if in doing so, it seemed to put the authority of the council over his own.

As a way to handle this conflict, the fathers of Basel began to suggest inviting the Greeks to their council, because they wanted to turn their council into a full fledged ecumenical council. They thought it would give them that much more credibility if they could establish a consensus with the Greeks over and against Eugene. The Pope, however, also liked this idea. He believed if he could call his own council with the Greeks, under the auspices of the council of Basel, he could effectively transfer the site of the council to a new, favorable location and undermine whatever authority his opposition possessed.[7]

Two different parties approached John VIII calling for the presence of the Greeks with the hope that unity could be achieved with them. Both sides promised to send military aid to protect Byzantium from the Turks. The emperor was pleased with the news. Not sure which side he should follow, he postponed his decision, saying he would make it after his arrival in Venice. He would follow the side which gave him the best offer. Thus, making an official declaration that there would be an ecumenical council, he called for representatives of the Orthodox to go with him or meet him in Italy. After collecting many prominent ecclesiastical authorities to form his entourage, such as Joseph the Patriarch of Constantinople, Bessarion the Metropolitan of Nicea, Mark of Ephesus as well as important laymen like George Scholarius and Gemistos Pletho, the emperor made his way to Italy.[8] At Venice, he decided to join the council led by the Pope, partly because the location the Pope suggested for the council would be easier for the Greeks to attend, but also because the Greeks still believed that it was necessary for the Pope of Rome or his representatives to be at a council for it to be ecumenical.[9] Once his decision was made, Eugene IV issued a Bull in 1438 declaring the Council in Basel to be transferred to Ferrara. All required prelates were told to make their way to the council, and if they did not attend, they would suffer the penalties appropriate for their disobedience.[10]

The first problem that had to be addressed before the council could be convened was that of protocol. How should the emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople greet the Pope? Both sides had different expectations. Joseph planned on greeting the Pope with a traditional embrace. But the Pope wanted to be greeted in a way which signified his superior status. Neither wanted to give in, and it seemed that the council would end before it could be begun. Yet a solution was had. For both sides to save face, it was agreed that the meeting would take place in private.[11]

There remained another important question of protocol: how should the delegates be seated at the council? The Pope believed he should have the central seat, indicating his leadership. John VIII thought that he should have it because tradition indicated that position should be given to the emperor. The solution, as it is described by Joseph Gill, shows how both sides found a way to preserve their own honor. “The thrones were arranged in such a way that the Pope’s was a little in advance of an empty one allotted to the Holy Roman Emperor, with the cardinals and the rest of the western prelates and members arrayed in order behind, while the throne of the Byzantine Emperor corresponded exactly with that of the western Emperor, and those of the Patriarch and the rest of the Greeks were placed accordingly.”[12] However, the Pope was not completely satisfied until his throne was elevated higher than the rest. John was given the second highest seat, and the Patriarch of Constantinople was given a chair placed at the same height as the most important Latin cardinal.

The official theological debates did not immediately begin after the council was convened. John wanted more of the Western princes to be present, hoping to talk to them personally to be sure that they would help Constantinople. Also, not all of the Eastern delegates had arrived. Metropolitan Isidore from Kiev would not be able to make it to Ferrara until August.[13] At the request of the emperor, the Pope agreed to wait for four moths before the official debates could commence. To the emperor’s disappointment, not many of the princes attended the council because they wanted to remain neutral between the Pope and the fathers at Basel. It must be said that the expense for this wait was tremendous, and since the council itself was being paid for by the Pope, we must see this as an indication of his own true desire to establish unity with the Greeks. Nonetheless, to speed up the council’s deliberations, it was suggested that those who were already present at the council should have informal theological debates. Eventually, it was agreed by all to debate the teaching of purgatory.[14] Probably because they were the two most important Eastern leaders at the council, Mark of Ephesus and Bessarion were chosen to represent the Greeks. The Pope chose Cardinal Julius Caesarini, Archbishop Andrew of Rhodes, and John of Torquemada to represent the West.[15]

On June 4, 1438, the informal debates began. Caesarini introduced the Western position: at their death, the saints immediately receive their blissful reward, those who die in mortal sin are sent justly to the fires of hell, and all other Christians not in the state of mortal sin need some sort of purification to prepare them for their eventual entrance to heaven. These souls will be purified by the fires of purgatory.[16] He justified the Latin position by references to scripture, patristic authors, and also by a philosophical examination of divine justice.[17]

Mark of Ephesus gave a brief, preliminary response, on June 14th. But it was Bessarion who would give the first official rebuttal. He denied the Latin position, but did not offer a positive statement on what it was that the Greeks believed.[18] He suggested that the Latin view was tainted by Origenism. As for what the patristic sources said, he acknowledged that they showed that prayers could be said for the dead, but this did not prove that their souls were purified by a literal fire. He also admitted that Latin fathers like Sts Augustine and Ambrose believed such souls were purified by a literal fire. However, Bessasrion pointed out that when they did so, they were only giving their own private opinion about the afterlife, and so should not be seen as offering a dogmatically binding teaching.

John of Torquemada was to make the next reply. He said purgatory should not be seen as Origenist, because the West also detested Origenism as much as the East. He also pointed out that the Latin fathers could not be so easily dismissed as Bessarion tried to do. Like the Greek fathers, they were guided by the Holy Spirit. In fact, Augustine’s authority was recognized by many councils. Having been shown that the teaching was ancient, and its theology was sound, the Greeks should either accept it or provide a superior alternative.

Mark’s reply is interesting. He was forced to say that Church Fathers could in fact err, and he showed St Gregory of Nyssa to be one who was prone to follow the errors of Origen.[19] The debates did not progress much further than this, and after six weeks of debate, neither side had changed their position.[20]

Meanwhile, things were terrible in Florence that summer. An outbreak of the plague worsened the mood of those within the city. Many of the Latin clerics left the city, and the council meetings were put on hold until the situation improved. Many of the Greeks wanted to leave and go to Venice until the council could be restarted. The emperor did not accept many of those requests. Instead, he wanted the delegates to remain in the city and work with those Latins who remained to resolve many procedural questions. The most important of them was how voting was going to be done at the council. If it were to be merely a matter of counting votes, the West had a significant advantage. The Latin clerics easily outnumbered the Eastern delegates. Finally an agreement was made. The Latins would debate amongst themselves, and vote amongst themselves, and what they agreed to would represent the Latin position at the council. The same applied to the Greeks, and consensus would be declared if both the sides reached the same conclusion. They also determined that, when the dogmatic sessions of the council opened, that the filioque would be up for debate. However, both sides wanted to approach the question differently: should the debates begin on the theological merits, or on the question of whether or not the Latins had the authority to add it to the Nicene Creed? The Greeks won this battle, and so on the eighth of October, when the council was back in session, they debated on whether or not the filioque could legitimately be added to the creed.[21]

Why could the West make no addition to the Nicene Creed? Because, Mark of Ephesus pointed out, the declaration of the Council of Ephesus had forbidden any tampering with the creed; it also forbade the creation of any new creeds.[22] Even if the teaching was legitimate, which Mark did not believe, the canons did not allow any private party to change the creed outside of the authority of an ecumenical council. This was the central position that the Greeks consistently pressed upon the Latins. To emphasize his point, on the sixteenth of October, Mark read through the complete decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and showed how they continued the norm established at Ephesus. After he read from the decree of II Nicea, to the surprise of the Greeks, the Latins provided an old copy of the decree, in Latin, where the filioque could be found.[23] The Greeks could only respond by suggesting that the text had been tampered with.[24]

Andrew of Rhodes then opened up with the Latin position, stating that the filioque should not be seen as a literal addition to the creed. Rather, it was only an explanation for what was already contained within it.[25] The Council of Ephesus had rejected the creation of a new symbol of faith, but did not forbid its translation. Thus they allowed this kind of alteration to the text, because a translation required the translator to interpret the text in its original language and determine how best to restate it in the new tongue. More importantly, the words of the creed had been changed. The creed of Nicea was different from the creed of I Constantinople. Was this to be seen as a fundamental change to the creed? If not, if it is to be seen as explaining what was implied by the creed of Nicea, then the filioque is to be seen in such a light. The Latins needed it to confront a particular heresy which the Greeks did not face. Since it still taught the same faith, it was not what was rejected at Ephesus.[26] Certainly one of the questions which came up was whether or not the Pope had the authority to add such an explanation to the text, but the question of the limits of papal authority, while important, would only be discussed briefly much later.[27]

As the debate continued, both sides talked past each other. The Latins wanted to talk more about the theological content implied by the filioque, while the Greeks thought their strongest case was based upon the canonical question. Finally, on the thirteenth of December, when it could be seen that neither side would budge, it was agreed that the theological merits of the filioque could also be addressed. But this would have to happen later. Many other problems had to be addressed.

The Greeks were growing impatient, and they feared that Constantinople might be taken while they were away. To make matters worse, the plague which had swept through the city during the summer had not been put under control; while it eased off in the winter, it was expected to return in full force in the spring. It was suggested that the council move to another city, and, after many arguments, both sides agreed that the council would move from Ferrara to Florence. When the Medici offered to transport and house the Greek delegation in Florence, the Greeks agreed to the transfer.[28] The city welcomed the council. They saw it would elevate their honor and provide for many important commercial opportunities for its citizens. Moreover, there was a large number of humanist scholars interested in classical antiquity residing in the city, and they believed the Greeks would provide them with copies of many important texts which the West did not possess. [29]

After moving to Florence, debates resumed in the March of 1439. At this time, the emperor was sick, and Patriarch Joseph was in bad health. Joseph would never fully recover, and would die before union was achieved. The question of theological validity of the procession of the Spirit began in earnest, and several important points were made. The Greeks stated unequivocally that the Fathers of the Church had proclaimed the monarchy of God the Father in the Trinity, and that this must be maintained. The Holy Spirit also must be seen to have only one origin for its existence, and this origin comes from the Father. But did not the filioque suggest that the Holy Spirit had two origins for its existence? That was the problem they had with the Latin teaching.

The Latins agreed that the Spirit has only one causation. To say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, is to say that the Father and Son together form one united origin for the Spirit. In their debates, they said that the Fathers of the Church assented to such a procession. Syllogisms used to support the filioque did not impress the Greeks, but patristic references did. Some, like Bessarion, began to be convinced. Searching through their own materials, they even found confirmation of its teaching in various authors, especially in the writings of St. Maximus the Confessor.[30] But they suggested that the best way to word the procession is to say that the Spirit proceeded from the Father through the Son. Thus, those who would come to favor of the union believed that the Greek and Latin traditions were saying the same thing. Mark of Ephesus, opposed to the union, and believing that the filioque was heresy, held his ground. He suggested that the texts of the Latin Fathers could not be verified, and that the texts of the Greek Fathers the West used were corrupted. Tired, worn out, and with a schism in the Greek party, Bessarion put forward one final and important suggestion. If it is agreed upon that the Fathers speak through the light and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then they could not be in fundamental disagreement.[31] Thus, if the Latin Fathers and the Greek Fathers seem to be in conflict, the conflict could only be apparent and not real; the teachings had to be pointing to the same dogmatic truth. It was in this way that the Greeks, grown weary from the debates, slowly agreed to the filioque.

Even by accepting this proposal, there were matters other matters to be worked out. The question on what kind of bread should be used for the eucharist was easily resolved: both sides can follow their own traditions.[32] Of the remaining questions, the most important was the role of the Pope in relation to the other Patriarchs. Here we can see that compromises were made by both sides. The Pope was granted many of the titles which the West had grown accustomed to using, while nonetheless it was stipulated that the rights and privileges of the Eastern Patriarchs would be kept intact, and that the ranking of the Patriarchs would continue along the designation established at Chalcedon.[33] On July 6, 1439, after much careful deliberation, the decree of union was promulgated, and all the Greeks who remained at the council save Mark of Ephesus signed it.

If there was such a success at the Council, why does history designate it as a failure? There were two major reasons for its downfall. The first had to do with the reception of the council by the laity and the clergy who were not at the council itself. Almost immediately, many of them saw the council as heretical and denounced those who supported it. “When the Greek bishops returned to Constantinople, they were stoned.”[34] In Moscow, Metropolitan Isidore was kicked out of his office, briefly imprisoned, and upon release fled out of Russia.[35] It is important to note, unlike in Constantinople, the secular government in Russia clearly rejected the union. The Byzantine situation was more complicated. The emperor and his successors gave their support to the union. Many at the court and the higher clergy accepted it. But the rest of the laity would have nothing to do with it. Until his death in 1444, Mark of Ephesus became the leading opponent of the union. The emperor and other unionists could find no one who could challenge Mark of Ephesus for the sympathies of the people. Indeed, George Scholarius, who once supported the union, changed sides and became Mark’s “successor” after Mark died in 1444.[36] When the city fell to the Turks, Scholarius would eventually be elevated to the position of Patriarch, ensuring that the schism lived on.[37]

However, there was a brief period, before the fall of the city, that the people could have been persuaded to accept the union. After Isidore went into exile, he became a Papal legate and was sent to Constantinople. When he arrived at the city, he had brought with him a contingent of soldiers to help defend the city.[38] The news was welcomed by the people. Their cries against the union had, for a time, been squashed. They believed that perhaps the Pope would actually provide the aid he had promised. Perhaps the fall of the empire could be prevented. But this was not to be. The Pope tried to enlist the aid of Western princes in the defense of Constantinople, but he was never able to get enough to stop the Turks. The city was doomed, and with it, the Florentine union.

At two important times in history the efforts for ecclesiastical reunion failed. The first time it was doomed from the start. The second time, however, had a slight chance of success. After Florence, there was little opportunity for any ecumenical dialogues to take place between Rome and Constantinople until modern times. Moscow, of course, wanted nothing to do with Rome. But to say the councils failed is not to tell the full story. Many positive achievements were made because of these contacts between the East and the West, and it is here we must briefly turn before answering the final question we proposed at the beginning of the essay, which was, what lessons can the ecumenical movement learn from these councils?

Notes

[1] Deno J. Geanakoplos, “A New Reading of the Acta, Especially Syropoulos,” in Christian Unity: The Council of Ferrara-Florence 1438/9 – 1989, ed. Giuseppe Alberigo (Leuven: Leuvem University Press, 1991), 351.
[2] Henry Chadwick, “The Theological Ethos of the Council of Florence,” in Christian Unity: The Council of Ferrara-Florence 1438/9 – 1989, ed. Giuseppe Alberigo (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1991), 239.
[3] Steven Runcimann, The Fall of Constantinople 1453 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 4-5.
[4] Although it is clear that the Emperor did not want to be trampled by the Pope or the West, throughout the council he threatened to leave whenever he felt his own honor was impugned.
[5] Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes, 253 -4.
[6] See the introduction in Nicholas of Cusa, The Catholic Concordance, ed. and trans. Paul E. Sigmund (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), xii.
[7] He even volunteered to fund the council itself, to make sure the Greeks could attend.
[8] Joseph Gill, S.J., The Council of Florence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 81.
[9] Martin Anton Schmidt, “The Problem of Papal Primacy at the Council of Florence,” in Church History 30 (1961):36.
[10] Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 513 -17.
[11] Ivan N. Oostroumoff, The History of the Council of Florence, trans. Basil Popoff (Boston: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1971), 38-40.
[12] Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence, 107.
[13] John Fennell, A History of the Russian Church to 1448 (New York: Longman, 1995), 174.
[14] Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence, 116.
[15] Ivan N. Oostroumoff, The History of the Council of Florence, 46.
[16] Ibid., 47.
[17] Scriptural passages used include: II Maccabees 12:46, Matthew 12:32 and I Corinthians 3:11-15. For patristic authority, among those he appealed to were Sts Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Epiphanius of Cyprus. See James Jorgenson, “The Debate Over the Patristic Texts on Purgatory at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, 1438” in St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 30 (1986):310 – 12.
[18] Ibid., 326-7.
[19] Ibid., 330.
[20] Reading back into the debates with developments of Western theology on the nature of purgatory (and hell), it would seem that a major part of the impasse has to be the fact that both sides were talking past each other. The Western tradition recognizes the fact that descriptions of purgatory need not be taken literally, although they tended to be so during the time Florence.
[21] Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence, 145.
[22] Ivan N. Ostroumoff, The History of the Council of Florence, 67.
[23] Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence, 148.
[24] At the time of the council this difficulty would consistently hamper dialogue, and yet it was an issue the council was not set up to handle. There were no critical texts of the Fathers to use. Each side had to rely upon the copies that were held in their own possession. When there was a conflict between different copies of a given text, the easy way out was to suggest there was wholesale corruption. Mark of Ephesus would, more than any other, make this claim throughout the council. See John H. Erickson, The Challenge of our Past (Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1991), 159 – 160 for the internal dispute between Mark of Ephesus and Bessarion of Nicea that developed concerning this issue. While, as Erickson points out, corrupt texts might have helped foster reunion, nonetheless many of the text cited by the Latins were legitimate and the Greeks did have problems of their own. Textual accuracy was a problem for both sides.
[25] Deno J . Geanakoplos, “A New Reading,” 334.
[26] Ivan N. Ostroumoff, The History of the Council of Florence, 76.
[27] See Martin Anton Schmidt, “The Problem of Papal Primacy,” 38 which shows how the debates over the primacy of the Pope began on June 16, 1439 and the union between the churches was to occur on July 6. That left very little time for any debate before documents were written, modified, fixed, and accepted by both parties.
[28] Henry Chadwick, East and West, 266.
[29] Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence, 184 - 186.
[30] See Ivan N. Ostroumoff, The History of the Council of Florence, 126.
[31] Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence, 241.
[32] See Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 527.
[33] The Latin of the decree reads, “Renovantes insuper ordinem traditum in canonibus ceterorum venerabilium patriarcharum, ut patriarcha Constantinopolitanus secondus sit post sanctissimum Romanum pontificem, tertius vero Alexandrinus, quartus autem Antiochenus, et quintus Hierosolymitanus, salvis videlicet privilegiis omnibus et iuribus eorum.” Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 528. For the corresponding Greek passage, see Tanner as well.
[34] Laurence J. James, “Byzantine Realpolitik and the Effects of Hesychasm Upon the Eastern Church Following the Council of Florence-Ferrara (1438 – 1445),” in The Patristic and Byzantine Review 11 (1992): 70.
[35] John Fennell, A History of the Russian Church, 179 – 181.
[36] Michael S. Azkoul, “St. Gennadius Scholarius and the Latin Theological Tradition: An Introduction,” in The Patristic and Byzantine Review 10 (1991): 170.
[37] Steven Runcimann, The Great Church in Captivity, 168 – 70.
[38] Steven Runcimann, The Fall of Constantinople, 69.

From Schism to the Council of Florence: Parts I and II

I have been relatively busy of late, but plan to get back to writing soon. Until then, I thought I would slowly put up parts of a paper I wrote in the fall of 2004 for a seminar I took at CUA. The paper was written relatively quickly, and probably needs some editing, but I thought there is enough in it which is quite good and worthwhile that I would put it up here.

I. A Tale of Three Cities

When Christians heard that the great city of Constantinople had fallen to the Turks on May 29, 1453, they were horrified. Nicholas of Cusa, amazed by the violence, felt the full impact of it in his grief. It led him to try to understand why religions fought so cruelly against each other. His response was to write a plea to the different the religions of the world, asking them to come together and work for a peaceful resolution of their differences. He believed they could produce a concordance of their beliefs, which allowed for a diversity of practices in a unified faith.[1] Perhaps he was influenced by his previous work in Constantinople, where he went to call the Greeks to an Ecumenical Council with the express purpose of reuniting the Greeks with the Latins. He saw dialogue was the means of peace. This council, the Council of Ferrara-Florence of 1438 -1445, was the second major attempt, beyond the use of sheer force, to bridge the schism which separated Rome from Constantinople. [2] The first, the Council of Lyons II in 1274, was important for ecclesiastical reforms it initiated. At both councils, the Greeks hoped reunion would encourage the West to protect the empire from all who sought to destroy it. Even though both councils received the support of the emperor, the Byzantine populace did not accept them. They thought that what was agreed to in them was in error, and that the Orthodox faith had been betrayed.[3]

The Pope tried to get Western military aid for Constantinople. While what was sent to Constantinople slowed down the Turkish advance, there was not enough aid to stop it. Constantinople’s fall was only a matter of time.[4] In the aftermath, Byzantium found a spiritual and political heir in Russia. Within a century of this monumental event, Russian apocalyptic literature was already designating Moscow as the third Rome, the final successor of the old empire.[5] Both of its ancestors, Rome and Constantinople, had fallen, first to a spiritual decline, and than to the infidel as a punishment for their errors. At last there were three great cities, and each had a rival claim for religious and secular authority. The attempts to forge a unity between Rome and Constantinople had becomes the means by which more discord was sown within Christendom.

While both unions failed, it is disingenuous to think that nothing positive came from them. To fully assess their value, not only must we take not as to why they failed, we must also look to see how they affected both sides of the Christian divide. When we do this, we will see some major work was achieved, not only at both of the councils, but also in their wake.

In the following essay we will look at the historical context of the councils, look at what was declared at them, and see why, if they reestablished unity, it was only for a fleeting moment of time. But we will not stop there. We will see how the councils helped spawn a different kind of dialogue, that of an intra-religious dialogue, where both sides had to re-examine their own religious traditions in light of what they learned at the councils. And finally, we will look at what lessons they can teach to the ecumenical movement. If we can learn from our mistakes, we might be able to forge a better future.


II A Bleak House, A Church Divided

To truly understand why Lyons II and Florence failed, we must look at them in context of their pre-history. We must understand why there was a schism between the East and the West, and also see what historical events helped strengthen the division between the churches. Thus, we will see that the disputes were often on theological issues, but there were many non-theological factors at work.

While many history books place the start of the schism 1054, this is an over simplification. Before then, there were many instances of schism between Rome and Constantinople. Each time, while unity was re-established, the relationship between the Sees was never fully healed. This helps point to the fact that the schism developed over a course of several centuries, long before 1054.[6] Certainly the lack of a common language between the West and the East did not help. Theology developed differently in the two traditions. Few could see that such a diversity was developing, and when they did it was too late. Rival ecclesiologies had sprung up. The West believed that the authority to lead the whole Church was granted to the Bishop of Rome. The Greeks, on the other hand, believed that authority rested upon the collegial activity of the so-called Pentarchy: the Sees of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, under the guidance of the teachings and canons of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils. This question of authority and primacy in the Church was played out over the question of the filioque.

Much could have been done by both the Greeks and the Latins to restore communion. Instead, both sides began to write polemical tracts against each other. These arguments were only a cover for a far greater problem: both sides lacked the humility and charity needed to heal the schism. Certainly whatever good will the Greeks might have had for the West was lost after the sacking of Constantinople in 1204. The elevation of a Western clergyman to the position of Patriarch in Constantinople was just one of many insults the Greeks endured at this sad point in history and this fostered a renewed polemical tradition against the Latins by the Greeks.[7] One can say that the indignity felt by the East became the central non-theological component behind the continuation of the schism. After the sacking of Constantinople, “mutual accusations turned into a real uprising of hatred…”[8] Many fled the city, and moved to the outskirts of the old Byzantine Empire, to Nicea, to form a new but smaller empire. Those who remained were forced to become Latins, and even after Constantinople was retaken by the Greeks, the people never forgot nor forgave the West for the humiliation they endured.

Michael Palaeologus (VIII) took back Constantinople from the West on July 25, 1261.[9] He found himself in a precarious situation. When Charles of Anjou became the king of Sicily, he wanted to take Constantinople for himself. To the East, the Turks continued their advance against the Byzantine Empire. Faced with the possibility of a war on two fronts, Michael, “did what he could to avert the danger by diplomatic and military measures. But he had the wit to see the ultimate deterrent to his Latin enemies lay in the moral authority and the restraining influence of the Pope.” [10] He believed that if he could foster a reunion of the churches, the Pope would back Michael against Charles of Anjou.

Pope Clement IV welcomed the idea of reunion, but he wanted it to be done only on his terms. He made it clear that the Greeks would have to accept Papal claims to authority, as well as the Western teachings on the filioque and purgatory. The Greeks would also have to follow the Latins in using unleavened bread for the eucharist. Clement knew it would be a difficult agreement for the Greeks to accept, but he “added in a subsequent letter that the emperor had great power over the Greek clergy and should simply coerce his subjects into union.”[11]

While Michael did not initially agree to Clement’s terms, he continued to hold a series of talks with Rome. Eventually he resigned himself to accepting the Papal demands. By that time Pope Clement IV was dead. His successor, Pope Gregory X, “made the liberation of the holy places the central theme of his pontificate.”[12] He believed that this could be accomplished by a united Christendom, and so was pleased with Michael’s desires for Christian unity. While Gregory did not change the stipulations for reunion, he was diplomatic enough to know that the agreement needed to be signed at a church council. In 1272, he issued a Bull for such a council to take place in 1274. The place he chose for the council was Lyons. Beyond reunion with the Greeks, he gave the council the objectives of collecting funds for a new Crusade and ecclesiastical reform.[13]

The Council of Lyons II was not set up to allow any formal debate between the Greeks and Latins. Michael promised the Pope that the Greeks would accept whatever the council decreed. He sent a layman, George Acropolites, to swear fidelity to the council on his behalf.[14] Thus it can be said the debates at the council were mostly focused upon internal Western concerns. This is not to say there was no theological investigation or achievement at the council to deal with the Greek situation. By this time, polemics on both sides of the schism focused on the filioqu. The Greeks had made the charge that the Latin filioque meant that there were two origins for the Holy Spirit. The council, taking note of this objection, agreed that such an interpretation would be in error. When they proclaimed the filioque, they said it must be understood in such a way that the Holy Spirit came from a single origination.[15] Despite the way the council favored the Latins, it is interesting to see this concession given to the Greeks. The West was not entirely unsympathetic to the Greeks, and made this change to rectify the situation.

There are two major reasons why the council failed to reconcile the East with the West. The first was the fact that unity was imposed, and not established through debate and dialogue. The Greeks did not place their heart into the union. Because they were told they were going to accept whatever was decreed at the council, the Greeks did not send a large delegation. Those who went were there mostly for ceremonial purposes. Only three important officials represented the East at the council – the layman George Acropolites, the ex-Patriarch of Constantinople Germanos III, and Theophanes the Metropolitan of Nicea.[16] The second reason was that the general populace reacted unfavorably to the council and its decrees. They had only recently broken their bondage from the West, and saw it as an example of the West once again trying to take control of Byzantium. Politicians might have obeyed the emperor’s wishes and agreed to the dictates of the council, but only a few Byzantines actually came to accept what the council taught. The most important of these was John Bekkos.[17] The unity was short lived, and did not last past Michael’s death. His son, Andronicus II, repudiated the council soon after his elevation to the throne. When Michael had died, he was rejected by many of the Greeks as a heretic, and anathematized by Pope Gregory’s successor, showing that neither side fully appreciated his attempts for unity.[18]

Notes

[1] He wrote one of the first great writings on religious pluralism, De Pace Fidei, where he begins by decrying the religious violence which spawned the destruction of Constantinople, “Fuit ex his, quae apud Constantinppolim proxime saevissime acta per Turkorum regem divulgabantur, quidam vir zelo Dei accensus, qui loca illarum regionum aliquando viderat, ut pluribus gemitibus oraret omnium creatorem; quod persecutionem, quae ob diversum ritum religionum plus solito saevit, sua pietate moderaretur.” Nikolaus von Kues, Philosophisch-Theologische Schriften, Band III (Wien, Austria: Herder & Co., 1967), 706.

[2] After the decree of unity was signed with the Greeks in 1439, the council continued to work and call other separated churches, such as the Coptic Orthodox Church, back into communion with Rome.

[3] See for example Deno John Geanakoplos, Interaction of the “Sibling” Byzantine and Western Cultures in the Middle Ages and Italian Renaissance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976), 156 – 170 for the general reaction against the Council of Lyons, and George E. Demacopoulos, “The Popular Reception of the Council of Florence in Constantinople 1439 – 1453,” in St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 43 (1999): 37 – 53 for an important analysis on the reaction to the Florentine union.

[4] Cardinal Isidore, once the Metropolitan of Kiev, became the Papal Legate to the Byzantine emperor. Upon his entry into Constantinople in 1452, he proclaimed and celebrated the Florentine Union. He had brought with him a small number of troops, and the people of Constantinople for a time came to believe that Western aid was going to save them. This almost swayed them to accept the union. But by this time, the troops which would reach Constantinople would be too few, and not enough to hold back the Turks. See Steven Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople 1453 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 69 – 72; 82 -85.

[5] John Meyendorff, Rome, Constantinople, Moscow: Historical and Theological Studies (Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996), 125.

[6] As Jaroslav Pelikan relates, “The formal severance of communion came later, but the loss of community had been there earlier. In many ways it seems correct to look for the religious and doctrinal origins of the split in the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries, even tough there was only occasional explicit acknowledgement of the widening gulf.” Jaroslav Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600 – 1700), (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1974), 147.

[7] See John Meyendorff, Rome, Constantinople, Moscow, 78 -9.

[8] John Meyendorff, “St Peter in Byzantine Theology,” in The Primacy of Peter, ed. John Meyendorff (Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992), 77.

[9] Henry Chadwick, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church, From Apostolic Times Until the Council of Florence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 246.

[10] Donald M. Nicol, “The Byzantine Reaction to the Second Council of Lyons, 1274” in Councils and Assemblies, ed. G.J. Cuming and Derek Baker (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 115.

[11] Chadwick, East and West, 246 – 7.

[12] Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco: 1997), 219.

[13] Steven Runcimann, The Sicilian Vespers: A History of the Mediterranean World in the Later Thirteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958; Canto edition, 1992), 148.

[14] Chadwick, East and West, 249.

[15] “Fideli ac devota professione fatemur, quod Spiritus sanctus aeternaliter ex Patre et Filio, non tanquam ex duobus principiis, sed tanquam ex uno principio, non duabus spirationibus, sed unica spiratione, procedit..” Concilium Lugdunense II in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils: Volume One, ed. Norman P. Tanner, S.J. (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 314.

[16] Deno J. Geanakopolos, “Bonaventura, the Two Mendicant Orders, and the Greeks at the Council of Lyons (1274),” in The Orthodox Churches and the East, ed. Derek Baker (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1976), 192-3.

[17] Known as the “unionist” Patriarch, John was not originally supportive of the union or its teaching on the filioque. Sergius Bulgakov tells us of his conversion while he was in prison: “It is a remarkable fact of his life that he began as an opponent of the union with the Latins that was being prepared by the emperor of Constantinople. He was imprisoned for this, and it was precisely the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit that for him was the chief stumbling block. In prison he obtained the works of the Latinizers on this question […] and they made upon him an impression so great that he became as ardent a defender of the Western doctrine as previously he had been an opponent of Latinism.” Sergius Bulgakov, The Comforter, trans. Boris Jakim (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2004), 103.

[18] See Chadwick, East and West, 253.

Alexander Men Quote

Today's world crisis shows that there is no future for hostility, or defensive isolationism, or eclecticism, but that dialogue can be fruitful for all participants. The followers of the religions of the world have something to say to mankind. Christianity brings the gospels, its service, its love. Of course, it is not so easy to learn tolerance and openness while remaining true to one's fundamental principles. Christians, though, have never thought that spiritual life was an easy matter, but rather an ascetic and heroic deed. The whole earth now needs this deed. On the eve of the two thousandth anniversary of the foundation of the Christian church, the world has reached a critical frontier. That is why dialogue has become not a luxury for intellectuals but a necessity of life.

---Alexander Men, "Christianity: The Universal Vision," in Christianity For the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Elizabeth Roberts and Ann Shukman (New York: Continuum, 1996).

On The Filioque

Before the proclamation of the Nicene Creed in the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, we find an intriguing dialogue between the priest and the people. The priest begins with the words, “Let us love one another, so that with one mind we may confess,” and the people conclude, saying, “The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, one in substance and undivided.”

Our declaration of the Trinity should be had only in a declaration of love. The unity of belief is attained only when the congregation is united together as if having one heart. This follows the teaching of St Paul who believes it is better to hold the faith together in charity (or agape love) than it is to hold the faith together by knowledge without that same charity. “If I have prophetic powers, and understand all the mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing” (1Cor. 13:2).

When this agape was lost among the Christians, the unity of faith was also lost. Through agape one can understand the other in the best possible light; when there is no agape the other is often read in the worst possible light. Unity is preserved by agape, not theological argumentation; theological argumentation (while necessary) must only be done in the light of agape, a light which is always beautiful, otherwise it becomes divisive. The great schism between Constantinople and Rome can only be understood when we understand how political and linguistic divisions eliminated the agape between the two Sees.

We are called to proclaim faith, and with this proclamation, to declare our faith in the Holy Trinity. Some think the way to do this is to investigate the deep mysteries of God, and proclaim their own, newer understanding of this mystery, even if it divides the faithful. Yet, St Symeon the New Theologian warns us that this is not a fruitful method, because its foundation lies not in a desire to proclaim God in the unified love of faith, but with an inclination to proclaim one’s superior knowledge over and above the rest of the faithful in a prideful, self-serving manner:

It would be the sign of a rash and presumptuous soul to speak or discourse about God, to investigate all that concerns him, or to try to express what cannot be expressed, or understand what for all men is beyond understanding. This is not only the affliction of those who take it upon themselves to talk about God, but even those who try to repeat the sayings of the theologians who have been inspired by God, [sayings] with which they fought the heretics in times past and which have been handed on to us in writing. Such persons interpret these in every conceivable sense, not in order to gain spiritual profit, but to be admired by their audience at banquets and gatherings, and in order to make a name for themselves as theologians. -- St Symeon the New Theologian, “The First Theological Discourse,” in Symeon the New Theologian: The Practical and Theological Chapters & The Three Theological Discourses. Trans. Paul McGuckin. (Kalamazoo, Michigan: Cistercian Publications, 1994), p.107.

St Symeon establishes a caveat that all theologians should consistently reflect upon throughout their career. Their task is to edify the faith, not to dismantle it. Even if what they say can be shown to be true, this is only one aspect of their work. Theology must impart the truth with the interpretive meaning that makes the truth relevant to the faithful, and the truth should be presented in a fashion so as to attract the faithful to accept it in a loving, holistic manner. That is to say, theologians need to make their work beautiful, because beauty, as the ancients said, attracts others and produces love in its wake. Without beauty, there is no love. When we see scornful divisions among Christians, this is a sure sign that, no matter which side (if any) holds the truth, no side has kept the beauty needed to make that truth relevant.

This makes for a rather sorrowful realization when one sees that the great divide between Constantinople and the Christian East with Rome and the Christian West resides in debates on the Holy Spirit, the Lord of Beauty. The East and West do not have a real theological difference in their understanding of Holy Spirit, but they do have distinct ways in presenting this theological truth. If they held to the universal love that is required by the Christian, Constantinople and Rome would have been able to overcome their different methods for discussing the Holy Spirit: they would have been willing to read each other charitably, and seen the common profession being proclaimed by both sides, instead of trying to denounce each other for being in error.

Mutual condemnations were given from the East and the West, one to another, in 1054 on the use or lack of the use of the filioque on the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. In the East, the Creed reads, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and Son is worshiped and glorified.” In the West, with the addition of the filioque, that is, the phrase, “and the son,” the Latin Creed became, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.”

Now, it must be pointed out that the West used the filioque long before 1054, and the East never included it in their rendition of the Creed. While it is a fact that the original rendition of the Creed did not include the filioque, when Rome added the filioque to deal with a local theological crisis, Constantinople and Rome remained in communion with each other. It was only during the reign of St Photius of Constantinople (c. 820 – 893) that significant theological arguments were issued by the East against the West on the inclusion of the filioque. However, there seems to be political reasons for this. When there was a dispute as to who was the rightful Patriarch of Constantinople, between Sts Ignatius and Photius, Rome rendered its decision and declared St Ignatius to be the rightful Patriarch. St Photius was enraged, and in his anger, wrote against Rome, its authority, and provided in his analysis a detailed criticism of the filioque, trying to use it as a justification for his non-compliance with Rome. When St Ignatius died, St Photius was able to restore communion with Rome. He even made his peace with St Ignatius by declaring Ignatius’ sainthood. When St Photius reestablished communion with Rome, Rome did not remove the filioque from their rendition of the Creed. Unity between the East and West was able to be had while the East and West had variant renditions of the Creed.

When the great schism of 1054 occurred, we see the rhetorical polemics of St Photius being elevated into theological declarations, and the East reified St Photius’ arguments as a justification for schism. They turned the filioque into a dogmatic issue, and in spite, the East called the West heretics, and the West followed suit with polemics against the East. Soon, theologians (and Saints) from both sides of the split lost the spirit of agape needed to read the theological opinions of the other side of the schism properly. Yet, if one took the time to study what is being proclaimed behind the words, one can easily see it is the same Trinitarian faith being pointed to by both sides of the schism.

The East centers its understanding of the Trinity on the monarchy of the Father. The Father, following St Gregory the Theologian, is the source or foundation for the Trinity.

But the Monarchy is that which we hold in honour. It is, however, a Monarchy that is not limited to one Person, for it is possible for Unity if at variance with itself to come into a condition of plurality; but one which is made of an equality of Nature and a Union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements to unity – a thing which is impossible to the created nature – so that though numerically distinct there is no severance of Essence. Therefore Unity, having from all eternity arrived by motion at Duality, found its rest in Trinity. That is what we mean by Father and Son and Holy Ghost. The Father is the Begetter and Emitter; without passion, of course, and without reference to time, and not in a corporeal manner. The Son is the Begotten, and the Holy Spirit the Emission; for I know not how this could be expressed in terms altogether excluding visible things. -- St Gregory the Theologian, “Second Theological Oration,” in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Second Series. Ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Volume 7 (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers: 1994), p.301.

Without going into all the theological justification for their understanding, the East holds that the Father is unoriginate, the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Father has no source for his person, and the other two rely upon the Father as their source, although outside of time and without losing their respective equality to the Father.

Now, the West, it can be said, seems to differ from the East, by saying the Son shares in the generation of the Spirit. The East allows for the fact, as Scripture points out, that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son by his sending of the Spirit unto us (John 17:7), but they do not want to say the Spirit proceeds from the Son. However, St Basil in chapter three of On The Holy Spirit, shows us that this distinction between “from” and “through” does not have to be a real distinction. It is a linguistic distinction employed by some philosophers to divide the matter of which something is made from the instrumental manner of its making. “They have been led into this error, however, by their study of pagan writers, who apply the expressions ‘from whom’ and ‘through whom’ to things which are distinct by nature. These writers suppose that ‘from whom’ refers to the matter from which something is made, and ‘through whom’ to the instrument which assists in its making.” St Basil the Great, On The Holy Spirit. Trans. David Anderson (Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997), p.19. As St Basil points out in chapter four, while this grammatical distinction can be employed as a useful tool, it is not necessary, and in fact, in the case of Scripture, this linguistic convention is not always followed “Now we admit that the Word of truth often uses these expressions in the manner just described, but we absolutely deny that the freedom of the Spirit is controlled by pagan pettiness. Rather, it appropriately varies its expression for each occasion, as the circumstances require.” Ibid, p.21. Following this argument, we can say that when the East allows for a procession of the Spirit through the Son, then they can read the Western declaration of a procession of the Spirit “from” the Son as acceptable – if it can be shown that the West continues to accept the East’s view that the Father as the ultimate, unoriginate source for the Trinity.

St Augustine is one of the great sources for the West’s understanding of the Trinity, and specifically, for the West’s use of the filioque. His notion of the Trinity became the foundation for Western theological reflection on the Trinity. Yet, when he proclaims the Spirit proceeding from the Son, he points it out as a gift of love from the Father to the Son: that is, there is still an aspect of the Spirit having the Father as a unique source, and the procession of the Spirit is a procession through the Son back to the Father as the mutual love between the Father and the Son. In Book XV of On The Trinity, St. Augustine writes “… I say, understand, that as the Father has in Himself that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, so has He given to the Son that the same Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, and be both apart from time: and that the Holy Spirit is so said to proceed from the Father as that it be understood that His proceeding also from the Son, is a property derived by the Son from the Father.” St Augustine, On The Trinity in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, First Series. Ed. Philip Schaff. Volume 3. (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), p.225. Indeed, St Augustine wants to make it clear that the Holy Spirit, in principle, proceeds from the Father. “For the Father alone is not from another, and therefore He alone is called unbegotten, not indeed in the Scriptures, but in the usage of disputants, who employ such language as they can on so great a subject. And the Son is born of the Father; and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally, the Father giving the procession without any interval of time, yet in common from both” Ibid, p.225.

In Augustine, the monarchy of the Father is preserved in the immanent Trinity, but there is the added benefit in his thought because the economic Trinity, the way the Trinity is revealed to us, is shown to be a reflection of the immanent Trinity. Nothing in the way God acts is accidental. The way God acts shows us something of the persons of God. The way the Spirit proceeds through the Son to us therefore shows us something of the person of the Son in the immanent Trinity. It is not, however, a double-procession of the Spirit, or a double-generation, as he expressed in Book V of On The Trinity. “If, therefore, that also which is given has him for a beginning by whom it is given, since it has received from no other source that which proceeds from him; it must be admitted that the Father and the Son are a Beginning of the Holy Spirit, not two Beginnings; but as the Father and Son are one God, and one Creator, and one Lord relatively to the creature, so are they one Beginning relatively to the Holy Spirit. But the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one Beginning in respect to the creature, as also one Creator and one God” Ibid., 95

The Western notion of the filioque must be read through charity, and must be understood as an attempt to explain the Trinity following their social-linguistic norms. Linguistic difficulties aside, both see the Father as the person who is the principal foundation of the Trinity. The West, following St Augustine, reflects upon the implications of the economic Trinity and what it signifies of the immanent Trinity. The East, ever cautious about defining anything about the Trinity, does not want to delve far into the intra-personal life of the Trinity. However, these methodological differences do not end, as some claim, with different conceptions of God, but they both preserve the one understanding of the Trinity which both sides of Christendom received from tradition.

While many scholars now do not want to establish 1054 as the official date for the schism between East and West, it clearly reflects the point in which the political agendas of partisans from both sides were finally manifest. It was not the East that was making an issue of the filioque, but it was the papal envoy, Cardinal Humbert, who issued the anathema against Constantinople, believing that Constantinople had to obey his own dictates. Charity was lost, the desire for the one heart of love needed to proclaim the Trinity was lost. Thankfully, in recent times, the desire for Christian unity, lost at the end of the first millennium, has returned. Perhaps the anger, hate, and political intrigue which allowed for partisans of both sides to denounce the other’s interpretation of the Creed can now be replaced by the love and oneness of heart needed for us to once again proclaim, “The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, one in substance and undivided.”