In 1439 the Byzantine Empire was on the verge of collapse, retaining little more than the city of Constantinople, as the Ottoman Empire swept into Europe.[2] During the reign of John V Palaiologos in the preceding century, the Byzantine Emperor had issued pleas to the West for aid in exchange for a union of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches; the Papacy had been unmoved by these appeals,[4] as had been King Louis I of Hungary.[5] In 1369, after the fall of Adrianople to the Ottomans, John V had again issued a plea for help, hastening to Rome and publicly converting to Roman Catholicism.[4] Help had not come, and John V was instead forced to become a vassal of Ottoman Sultan Murad I.[4] A brief respite from Ottoman control later came as Timur pressured the Ottomans on the east, but by the 1420s Byzantine Emperor John VIII Palaiologos again acutely felt the need for assistance from the West. He again made the same plea his predecessor had, travelling with a delegation to the Council of Ferrara-Florence to reconcile with the Western Church. He consulted with Neoplatonist philosopher Gemistus Pletho, who advised him that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox delegations should have equal voting power at the Council;[6] nonetheless, the Emperor was under far more pressure to bring about a union than was the Pope. In order to help the Russian Orthodox Church unite with the Western Church, John VIII appointed Isidore of Kiev as Metropolitan of Kiev in 1436 against the wishes of Vasily II of Moscow.[7]
The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches had developed several theological differences in the course of the East–West Schism of 1054 and the centuries following. The chief difference revolved around the insertion of the word Filioque (English: and the Son) into the Latin version of the Nicene Creed by the Roman Catholic Church, which Orthodox bishops had refused to accept.[8] Thus, Eastern Orthodox dogma held that the Holy Spirit proceeded from God the Father, whereas Roman Catholic dogma held that it proceeded from both the Father andthe Son.[8] The Eastern bishops at the Council of Florence emphatically denied that even an ecumenical council had the power to add anything to the creed.[9] A second central issue was that of Papal supremacy, which the Orthodox bishops had also rejected.[2] Also important was the issue of the doctrine of Purgatory, which the Eastern churches similarly rejected, and the issue of leavening, wherein the Orthodox Churches used leavened bread for the Eucharist while the Roman Catholics used unleavened bread.
Council of Florence and Laetentur Caeli
Laetentur caeli et exultet terra. Sublatus est enim de medio paries qui occidentalem orientalemque dividebat ecclesiam et pax atque concordia rediit, illo angulari lapide Christo qui fecit utraque unum, vinculo fortissimo caritatis et pacis utrumque iungente parietem et perpetue unitatis federe copulante ac continente; postque longam meroris nebulam et dissidii diuturni atram ingratamque caliginem, serenum omnibus unionis optate iubar illuxit.
The 700 Eastern Orthodox delegates at the Council of Ferrara-Florence were maintained at the Pope's expense.[10] Initially, Eastern Orthodox Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople was in attendance, but when he died before the council ended, Emperor John VIII largely took Church matters into his own hands.[11] To this end, he appointed the pro-union Metrophanes II of Constantinople as Joseph II's successor. In the summer of 1439 the council was moved from Ferrara to Florence because, at the instigation of Cosimo de' Medici, Florence offered to pay to maintain the Greek delegates, whom the Papacy was struggling to support.[10]
Since the Roman Catholic West held all of the bargaining power given John VIII's desperate situation, the union of the churches was a simple matter for John: the Emperor ordered the Eastern representatives to accept the Western doctrines of the Filioque, Papal supremacy, and Purgatory, as Eugene IV asked.[11] In return, Eugene pledged to provide military assistance for the defence of Constantinople and to encourage the King of GermanyAlbrecht II to war against the Ottomans.[12] On 6 July 1439 the Emperor and all of the present bishops except one assented,[11] signing their names to Eugene's Articles of Union. The day was proclaimed a public holiday in Florence, the Day of Union, and triumphal ceremonies were held.[10] Eugene IV then officially proclaimed the union in the form of a bull, Laetentur Coeli.[10] The bull was read from the pulpit of the Florence Cathedral by a Greek, Basilios Bessarion, and a Latin, Julian Cesarini.[8]
Laetentur Caeli contained the first formal conciliar definition of Papal primacy.[13] It has been suggested that Eugenius IV insisted on this because his primacy was at the time being threatened by a rival Antipope, Felix V, and the Conciliar Movement at the Council of Basel.[12] The bull mentioned no differences between Eastern and Western understandings of the Papacy but rather simply restated the Western position.[14] On the subject of the Filioque, it took a similar tone, emphasizing the commonalities between the theologies of the East and West but clearly siding with the Roman Catholic position without even mentioning Eastern Orthodox objections.[14] On the subject of bread, the bull provided for either unleavened or leavened bread to be used according to local custom.[1] The doctrine of Purgatory and the effectiveness of prayer for those in Purgatory were affirmed,[1] again according to the Roman Catholic doctrine. Finally, the bull defined the order of primacy among the patriarchs of the pentarchy as being Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and lastly Jerusalem.[1]
The lone dissenting voice against the bull was that of Mark of Ephesus, delegate for the Patriarch of Alexandria, who refused to compromise on either the Filioque or Purgatory and held that Rome continued in heresy and schism.[11] Reportedly, upon seeing that Mark's signature was missing, Eugene IV responded, “And so we have accomplished nothing.”[11] Nonetheless the union was to proceed, and representatives from the Vatican would be sent to Constantinople to see how it was being carried out.[11]
English Text
Image of the original text.
Council of Florence (XVII Ecumenical), Session 6 — 6 July 1439
[Definition of the holy ecumenical synod of Florence, presided by Pope Eugenius IV]
Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. With the agreement of our most dear son John Palaeologus, illustrious emperor of the Romaioi [note: the Latin text renders the term Basileus Romaion as "Imperator Romeorum" rather than "Imperator Romanorum", which was the correct Latin form for "Emperor of the Romans" used however by westerners to describe the Holy Roman Emperor and not the Eastern Roman Emperor], of the deputies of our venerable brothers the patriarchs and of other representatives of the eastern church, to the following.
Let the heavens be glad and let the earth rejoice. For, the wall that divided the western and the eastern church has been removed, peace and harmony have returned, since the corner-stone, Christ, who made both one, has joined both sides with a very strong bond of love and peace, uniting and holding them together in a covenant of everlasting unity. After a long haze of grief and a dark and unlovely gloom of long-enduring strife, the radiance of hoped-for union has illuminated all.
Let Mother Church also rejoice. For she now beholds her sons hitherto in disagreement returned to unity and peace, and she who hitherto wept at their separation now gives thanks to God with inexpressible joy at their truly marvellous harmony. Let all the faithful throughout the world, and those who go by the name of Christian, be glad with mother catholic church. For behold, western and eastern fathers after a very long period of disagreement and discord, submitting themselves to the perils of sea and land and having endured labours of all kinds, came together in this holy ecumenical council, joyful and eager in their desire for this most holy union and to restore intact the ancient love. In no way have they been frustrated in their intent. After a long and very toilsome investigation, at last by the clemency of the holy Spirit they have achieved this greatly desired and most holy union. Who, then, can adequately thank God for his gracious gifts?' Who would not stand amazed at the riches of such great divine mercy? Would not even an iron breast be softened by this immensity of heavenly condescension?
These truly are works of God, not devices of human frailty. Hence they are to be accepted with extraordinary veneration and to be furthered with praises to God. To you praise, to you glory, to you thanks, O Christ, source of mercies, who have bestowed so much good on your spouse the catholic church and have manifested your miracles of mercy in our generation, so that all should proclaim your wonders. Great indeed and divine is the gift that God has bestowed on us. We have seen with our eyes what many before greatly desired yet could not behold.
For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.
In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.
And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.
Also, the body of Christ is truly confected in both unleavened and leavened wheat bread, and priests should confect the body of Christ in either, that is, each priest according to the custom of his western or eastern church. Also, if truly penitent people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains; and the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief from such pains, that is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others of the faithful in accordance with the church's ordinances.
Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.
In the West, Pope Eugenius IV conducted further negotiations in an attempt to extend the union. He signed an agreement with the Armenians on 22 November 1439,[15] and with a part of the Jacobites of Syria in 1443, and in 1445 he received some of the Nestorians and the Cypriot portion of the Maronites.[16] These unions proved unstable and mostly failed to last. In the spring of 1442 the pope began planning a crusade by both land and sea against the Ottomans from Hungary and the Mediterranean to fulfil the Pope's pledges.[12] These plans were initially slowed by a civil war in Hungary.[12] On 1 January 1443, Eugene IV finally proclaimed an official crusade.[12]Władysław III of Poland, now King of Hungary as well, agreed, but could not find support among his Polish nobles because they supported the Conciliar Movement against the Pope.[12] Władysław nonetheless undertook the crusade with Hungarian troops and was killed in the Battle of Varna within a year, ending the attempt.[12] Constantinople could no longer expect the West's military support.[12]
In the East, John VIII, Mark of Ephesus, and the rest of the Eastern hierarchs returned to Constantinople on 1 February 1440.[11] They soon found that the Byzantine people and the monks of Mount Athos, rallying around Mark, largely rejected the union.[7][8][11] The newly Eastern Catholic bishops, in opposition to Mark, attested his resistance:
“Having returned to Constantinople, Ephesus disturbed and confused the Eastern Church by his writings and addresses directed against the decrees of the Council of Florence.”[11]
Opinion among the bishops in Russia, contrary to those in Constantinople, remained with Mark, and by 1443 most Russian patriarchs repudiated the Council of Florence and the union of the churches.[11] Thus Isidore of Kiev was arrested at the command of Vasily II upon his return to Moscow and convicted of apostasy, after which he was imprisoned; he then escaped and fled to Rome to become a cardinal.[7][8] He returned to Constantinople in 1452 to celebrate the union but was forced to flee to Rome again as the city fell to the Ottomans.[7] Meanwhile, in 1448, seeking to escape any unionist influence, the Russian Orthodox Church declared itself autocephalous.[8]
The Venetian and Genoan governments ensured that no significant support from the West was forthcoming to Constantinople, supporting the Ottomans against the Byzantines.[8] With the fall of Constantinople the last prospects of the union, too, fell. The new Ottoman rulers wanted to prevent the conquered Byzantines from appealing to the West, so Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror appointed the anti-union Gennadius Scholarius as Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople; he immediately renounced the Filioque and the Great Schism was renewed.[8]
Notes
↑ Sometimes also spelled as Laetentur Coeli, Laetantur Caeli, Lætentur Cæli, Lætentur Cœli, or Lætantur Cæli, and occasionally referred to as the Act of Union or "Decree of Union".
Related Research Articles
Filioque, a Latin term meaning "and from the Son", was added to the original Nicene Creed, and has been the subject of great controversy between Eastern and Western Christianity. The term refers to the Son, Jesus Christ, with the Father, as the one shared origin of the Holy Spirit. It is not in the original text of the Creed, attributed to the First Council of Constantinople (381), which says that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father" without the addition "and the Son".
The Fourth Council of Constantinople was held in 879–880. It confirmed the reinstatement of Photius I as patriarch of Constantinople.
The Council of Florence is the seventeenth ecumenical council recognized by the Catholic Church, held between 1431 and 1449. It was convoked as the Council of Basel by Pope Martin V shortly before his death in February 1431 and took place in the context of the Hussite Wars in Bohemia and the rise of the Ottoman Empire. At stake was the greater conflict between the conciliar movement and the principle of papal supremacy.
The Union of Brest took place in 1595–1596 and represented an agreement by Eastern Orthodox Churches in the Ruthenian portions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth to accept the Pope's authority while maintaining Eastern Orthodox liturgical practices, leading to the formation of the Ruthenian Uniate Church, which currently exists as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and the Belarusian Greek Catholic Church.
The East–West Schism, also known as the Great Schism or the Schism of 1054, is the break of communion between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches since 1054. A series of ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes between the Greek East and Latin West preceded the formal split that occurred in 1054. Prominent among these were the procession of the Holy Spirit (Filioque), whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist, iconoclasm, the coronation of Charlemagne as Emperor of the Romans in 800, the Pope's claim to universal jurisdiction, and the place of the See of Constantinople in relation to the pentarchy.
The Metropolis of Moscow and all Russia was a metropolis that was unilaterally erected by hierarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Church in the territory of the Grand Duchy of Moscow in 1448. The first metropolitan was Jonah of Moscow; he was appointed without the approval of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. The metropolis split from the Metropolis of Kiev and all Rus' because the previous metropolitan — Isidore of Kiev — had accepted the Union of Florence. Seventeen prelates succeeded Jonah until Moscow's canonical status was regularised in 1589 with the recognition of Job by the Ecumenical Patriarch. Job was also raised to the status of patriarch and was the first Patriarch of Moscow. The Moscow Patriarchate was a Caesaropapist entity that was under the control of the Russian state. The episcopal seat was the Dormition Cathedral in Moscow.
The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs is a letter issued in May 1848 by the four Eastern patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Church, who met at Council in Constantinople. It was addressed to all Eastern Orthodox Christians, as a response against Pope Pius IX's Epistle to the Easterners which had been issued in January (1848).
Mark of Ephesus was a hesychast theologian of the late Palaiologan period of the Byzantine Empire who became famous for his rejection of the Council of Ferrara–Florence (1438–1439). As a monk in Constantinople, Mark was a prolific hymnographer and a follower of Gregory Palamas' theological views. As a theologian and a scholar, he was instrumental in the preparations for the Council of Ferrara–Florence, and as Metropolitan of Ephesus and delegate for the Patriarch of Alexandria, he was one of the most important voices at the synod. After renouncing the council as a lost cause, Mark became the leader of the Orthodox opposition to the Union of Florence, thus sealing his reputation as a defender of Eastern Orthodoxy and pillar of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
John XI Bekkos was Patriarch of Constantinople from June 2, 1275, to December 26, 1282, and the chief Greek advocate, in Byzantine times, of the reunion of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.
In the history of Christianity, the first seven ecumenical councils include the following: the First Council of Nicaea in 325, the First Council of Constantinople in 381, the Council of Ephesus in 431, the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, the Third Council of Constantinople from 680 to 681 and finally, the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. All of the seven councils were convened in what is now the country of Turkey.
The Fourth Council of Constantinople was the eighth ecumenical council of the Catholic Church held in Constantinople from 5 October 869, to 28 of February 870. It was poorly attended, the first session by only 12 bishops and the number of bishops later never exceeded 103. In contrast the pro-Photian council of 879–80 was attended by 383 bishops. The Council met in ten sessions from October 869 to February 870 and issued 27 canons.
The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church have been in a state of official schism from one another since the East–West Schism of 1054. This schism was caused by historical and language differences, and the ensuing theological differences between the Western and Eastern churches.
The East–West Schism that occurred in 1054 represents one of the most significant events in the history of Christianity. It includes various events and processes that led to the schism and also those events and processes that occurred as a result of the schism. Eastern and Western Christians had a history of differences and disagreements, some dating back to the period of Early Christianity. At the very root of what later became the Great Schism were several questions of pneumatology and ecclesiology. The most important theological difference occurred over various questions regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit, and the use of the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed. One of the main ecclesiological issues was the question of papal supremacy. Other points of difference were related to various liturgical, ritual, and disciplinary customs and practices. Some political and cultural processes also contributed to the breakout of the schism.
In the 9th century, Christianity was spreading throughout Europe, being promoted especially in the Carolingian Empire, its eastern neighbours, Scandinavia, and northern Spain. In 800, Charlemagne was crowned as Holy Roman Emperor, which continued the Photian schism.
The history of Eastern Orthodox Christian theology begins with the life of Jesus and the forming of the Christian Church. Major events include the Chalcedonian schism of 451 with the Oriental Orthodox miaphysites, the Iconoclast controversy of the 8th and 9th centuries, the Photian schism (863-867), the Great Schism between East and West, and the Hesychast controversy. The period after the end of the Second World War in 1945 saw a re-engagement with the Greek, and more recently Syriac Fathers that included a rediscovery of the theological works of St. Gregory Palamas, which has resulted in a renewal of Orthodox theology in the 20th and 21st centuries.
The history of the filioque controversy is the historical development of theological controversies within Christianity regarding three distinctive issues: the orthodoxy of the doctrine of procession of the Holy Spirit as represented by the Filioque clause, the nature of anathemas mutually imposed by conflicted sides during the Filioque controversy, and the liceity (legitimacy) of the insertion of the Filioque phrase into the Nicene Creed. Although the debates over the orthodoxy of the doctrine of procession and the nature of related anathemas preceded the question of the admissibility of the phrase as inserted into the Creed, all of those issues became linked when the insertion received the approval of the Pope in the eleventh century.
The position of the Eastern Orthodox Church regarding the Filioque controversy is defined by their interpretation of the Bible, and the teachings of the Church Fathers, creeds and definitions of the seven Ecumenical Councils, as well as the decisions of several particular councils of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Catholic–Eastern Orthodox relations have warmed over the last century, as both churches embrace a dialogue of charity. The Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) ushered in a new era of relations for the Roman Church towards the Orthodox Church, fondly describing the Orthodox as “separated brethren” with valid sacraments and an apostolic priesthood. The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, encouraged local churches to prepare for future dialogue in the Third Pan-Orthodox Conference in Rhodes (1964), and has since engaged in several ecumenical efforts with the Vatican. Significantly, in 1965 Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople jointly lifted the mutual excommunications of 1054.
The schism between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and part ofitsMetropolis of Kiev and all Rus occurred between approximately 1467 and 1560. This schism de facto ended supposedly around 1560.
The Metropolis of Kiev, Galicia and all Rus' was a metropolis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Eastern Orthodox Church that was erected in 1441. The canonical territory was the western part of the traditional Kievan Rus' lands — the states of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland. The episcopal seat was initially in the city of Navahrudak, which is today located in Belarus; later it moved to Vilnius in Lithuania. It was disestablished in 1595/6 with the creation of a new ecclesial body — the Ruthenian Uniate Church.
1 2 3 Lyttle, Charles H. "Odd Moments and Papal Bulls" in The Christian Register, Vol. 91. p. 854. 5 September 1912.
↑ Davies, Norman. Europe: A History. p.446-448. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1996. ISBN0-19-820171-0
1 2 3 Mango, Cyril. The Oxford History of Byzantium. 1st ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2002
↑ Küküllei János: Lajos király krónikája, Névtelen szerző: Geszta Lajos királyról; Osisris Kiadó, Budapest, 2000. (Millenniumi Magyar Történelem)
↑ Merry, Bruce (2002) "George Gemistos Plethon (c. 1355/60–1452)" in Amoia, Alba & Knapp, Bettina L., Multicultural Writers from Antiquity to 1945: A Bio-Bibliographical Sourcebook. Greenwood Publishing Group.
1 2 3 4 Brown, Patricia Fortini. Laetentur Caeli: The Council of Florence and the Astronomical Fresco in the Old Sacristry. 2009.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Погодин, Амвросий. Святой Марк Эфесский и Флорентийская уния. Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1963.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Stieber, Joachim W. Pope Eugenius IV, the Council of Basel and the Secular and Ecclesiastical Authorities in the Empire: The Conflict Over Supreme Authority and Power in the Church. 1978.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
