The Council of Florence

7/28/2019 The Council of Florence

1/35

THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE

by Joseph Gill, S.J.

a section of

Chapter VI: UNION: THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Nota Bene: selected footnotes inserted in the body of the text itself

Relief of Pope Eugenius IV

ISIDORE of Kiev, in a speech he wrote some time between 17 April and 10 June, afterrecapitulating briefly the arguments of both sides on the question ofDia andEkand

adverting to the frequent Latin use of syllogisms, continues: 'I say with regret that they

have rather deepened the schism and have made the disagreement greater and stronger.'

It is a sad judgment on all the fervent discourses of Montenero and an insight into the

Greek mind. There is no doubt that the Greeks distrusted reasoning of that kind on

theological questions. Scholarius addressing the oriental Synod in Florence noted their

fear in these words: 'I know that you, 0 Greeks, in matters of this sort have no confidence

in proofs from reason but consider them suspect and misleading; much more then will

you both keep clear of syllogizingper impossibile and be on your guard against others

who do that.'

Even Bessarion wrote: 'The words [of the Fathers] by themselves alone are enough to

solve every doubt and to persuade every soul. It was not syllogisms or probabilities or

arguments that convinced me, but the bare words [of the Fathers].' And Syropoulus

records the impression made on one of the Georgian envoys when Montenero appealed to

the authority of Aristotle: He said: 'What about Aristotle, Aristotle? A fig for your fine

UNION: THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT by Jose... http://web.archive.org/web/20030114135653/http://praiseofg

of 35 10/6/09 1:0


2/35

Aristotle.' And when I by word and gesture asked: 'What is fine?', the Georgian replied:

'St Peter, St Paul, St Basil, Gregory the Theologian; a fig for your Aristotle, Aristotle.'

The Georgian put into words what probably most of the Greek prelates were thinking.

Their approach to theology, and particularly the theology of the Blessed Trinity, was on

purely patristic lines and that in the simplest way. It is noteworthy that even Mark

Eugenicus was content for the most part with quoting the words of his authorities, adding

only the barest commentary, and he was one of the best theologians among them. The rest

of them, with very few exceptions, had little theological formation apart from the general

tradition of the faith which they had imbibed from childhood. John VIII twice excused

the want of precision of the Greek prelates on the ground of their lack of learning.

One of the things he threw in the face of Antony of Heraclea when he got angry with him

was his ignorance: 'Do you not know your own limitations and the extent of your

knowledge? But because you are uneducated and a rustic you put yourself forward to say

such things.. . Because you are ignorant and uneducated and vulgar and a rustic and don't

know or realize what you are saying.' A little later Heraclea, urged to give his opinion in

writing, replied not without irony 'Even if I am ignorant I will obey your injunction, and Ishall not deem it a catastrophe if I make solecisms or barbarism.'

Scholarius, writing in 1451, said much the same about the Patriarch's scholarship: '...as if

didmean, as the late futile Patriarch said, "cause", and having said it without further ado

he died. For he had no right to go on living after philosophizing so brilliantly about the

preposition and cause, and arrogating to himself preeminence in three sciences, namely

grammar, philosophy and this quintessence of theology, about which he never hoped even

in his dreams to have the courage to make any pronouncement.'

Indeed, in his address of April 1439 to the Greek synod in Florence Scholarius went so

far as to taunt his hearers with their ignorance, calling them 'men of no great capacity tovie with the Latins in theology and philosophy, owing to the sad state of our affairs,

because of which those in the highest positions attain to just so much of theology and

philosophy as merely not to seem utterly uneducated, since institutions of learning are

lacking, ambition for study and letters is quenched and everything is done under the

pressure of need and necessity.'

Syropoulous once replied to the Patriarch with words no less scathing:

'I know the prelates and, with one or two exceptions, the rest -- what are they worth? Or

do you bid me follow the one who said: 'I affirm the Filioque provided that the Holy

Trinity be preserved unharmed', and, being interrogated three times, three times herepeated the same unchanged and made everybody laugh, having fallen into opposition

with his chorus leader. No, I said, it is not for me to follow prelates whose theology is of

that standard.'

Gregory, the procurator of Alexandria, in a letter to Philotheus the Patriarch, just after the

end of the sessions wrote: 'But though we all agreed, as has been said, still two prelates

dissented from us, the Metropolitan of Ephesus, assuredly a man of learning, and the


of 35 10/6/09 1:0


3/35

Bishop of Stauropolis, a man entirely devoid of education, to whom nothing is certain.'

These, testimonies (and more could be adduced) are not exaggerated calumnies of the

Latins, but the judgments of Greeks about Greeks, and are therefore in their general sense

true. Why else were Mark Eugenicus, Bessarion and Dionysius consecrated on the eve of

the Council 'to be present as champions in the Synod', if not because the rest of the

hierarchy was not conspicuous for learning? And why did the Emperor think it necessary

to bring the aged, neo-pagan Gemistus, the probably religiously sceptical Armiroutzes

and the judge Scholarius as advisers except because they had a reputation as philosophers

which the prelates lacked?

The six orators of the Greeks at the sessions included none of the older prelates but three

of those lately consecrated, Eugenicus, Bessarion and Isidore, with two Staurophoroi and

the lay-philosopher Gemistus. So Montenero's display of metaphysical niceties, his

disquisitions on substantia prima and secunda and the philosophy of generation and the

rest, far from clarifying the thoughts of most of his Greek hearers (and perhaps of not a

few of the Latins too), would have served only to mystify them the more and to make

them cleave the more tenaciously to their sheet-anchor in trinitarian theology -- 'from theFather alone' -- feeling that Latin thought on the Blessed Trinity was far removed from

the simple tradition they had inherited.

But the Lombard Provincial had done two things that had impressed them. He had

roundly affirmed western belief in there being but one cause of the Holy Spirit and,

particularly in the last two sessions, he had produced an array of Fathers both Latin and

Greek to support his assertions. There he was approaching the ground that the Orientals

were more familiar with. They too believed that there was but one cause of the Holy

Spirit. They too based their belief on the authority of the Fathers. The works of

Montenero's Latin Fathers, it is true, they did not know, but names like Leo, Hilary,

Jerome, Damasus, Augustine, Ambrose, Gregory Dialogus could not be disregarded. TheGreek Fathers were their own spiritual ancestors and even if they were familiar more with

catenae of passages as found in the writings of Cibasilas and such like authors rather than

with the originals, still they could not reject John's quotations, because they had all been

recited in the original Greek and chapter and verse specified.

It was probably a shock to many of them that so large a number of the Greek Fathers

spoke of 'proceeding' or 'issuing from both', of 'proceeding through the Son' or even of

'being from the Son', and that no Father was produced even by Eugenicus who had

bluntly said 'from the Father only'. But they were as yet by no means convinced. The

Scriptures declared 'proceedeth from the Father' and said nothing about the Son. John's

many Greek authorities had made them feel uneasy, but as yet had not persuaded them toabandon what they thought was the tradition of their Church, and they probably

experienced the feeling that simpler folk commonly have when faced with a display of

erudition, that did they but know a little more about the subject they could readily find an

answer.

All the same a seed had been sown that could bear fruit. The Saints of both Churches had


of 35 10/6/09 1:0


4/35

written at length on the doctrine of the Trinity. The Latin Saints, it is true, used a

phraseology that was suspect to the Greek mind, for they wrote 'From the Father and the

Son'. The Greek Saints were less emphatic, but they spoke of the Spirit being produced

'from both' and 'through the Son'. No Saint could err in matters of faith, for they all -- this

was taken almost as a definition of sanctity -- were inspired by the one Holy Spirit. So

what they said about the Holy Spirit, no matter how different it might seem to be, could

not in actual fact be different. The divergence must be only apparent: it could not be real.if, therefore, the Latin Saints really did say 'From the Son' and the Greek Saints 'Through

the Son', then these two expressions must mean the same thing and no obstacle could

remain to prevent union between East and West at least as regards the doctrine of the

Blessed Trinity.

Amiroutzes in a written judgment he presented at a Greek meeting early in June sums up

this attitude of mind:

'On the basis of these two suppositions I do not see how the Holy Spirit is not from the

Father and the Son. For if we must submit to the Saints in everything they say and they

really declare that the Holy Spirit is and proceeds from the Father and the Son and thatthe Father and the Son are the one cause of the Holy Spirit, if the Holy Spirit is not from

the Father and the Son, it would be a miracle. For I consider that this necessarily follows.

Therefore.. . .'

It is important to appreciate this conviction of the Greeks, that the Saints could not err in

the faith and therefore must agree, for it is both the explanation and the justification of

their accepting union (which they did accept) without being open to a true charge of

insincerity and of inexcusable moral cowardice. It was for them an axiom and it was

accepted by all without exception. It was the reason why they so often put forward the

words of St Maximus to the Latins as a basis of agreement.

Bessarion delivered a long speech before the Greek synod exclusively to prove the

harmony of the Saints . Scholarius wrote two long treatises with the same object. Isidore

without meeting with any opposition propounded it at a public meeting as a self-evident

truth. Dorotheus of Mitylene proclaimed the same.

Mark Eugenicus accepted the principle as much as any one else. That is why he persisted

in asserting that the quotations advanced from the Latin Fathers were falsified (since the

Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, the Saints could not have said that He does,

was his reasoning), in spite of their number and in spite of the fact that they are found so

widespread in Latin writings and so interwoven into the treatises that to exclude them

would leave no more than blank pages (as Bessarion rejoined): at the least they weredoubtfully authentic, since the Greeks lacked the means of checking them, so only the

Greek Fathers should be followed. Syropoulus was of the same opinion and, if we are to

accept all that he retails in hisMemoirs, he dilated on this theme even more than Mark of

Ephesus.

But it was some time before this promising line of agreement was seriously taken up and


of 35 10/6/09 1:0


5/35

pursued. The Greek mind, immediately on the end of the public sessions, was dominated

by a weariness of endless discourses and a determination to endure no more of them.

There they were always out-talked and out-argued by the Latins. Half of what was said

they did not understand. However much Eugenicus might strive to find answers, they felt

that they had in fact no adequate reply, for the Latins could always produce new

arguments and new texts. So either some other way for union must be found or else they

would finish with it all and go home.

And as neither side had any expedient to suggest, an atmosphere of despair reigned for

two months. It is true that halfway through that period both Bessarion and Scholarius

delivered long orations precisely on this point of the concord of the Saints, but they do

not seem to have made any deep impression, though they must have had some effect. It

was not till nearly the end of May, more than two months after the last public session,

that the possibilities for union latent in the agreement of the Saints were thoroughly

investigated. Bessarion and a few others then exploited them to the full. The rest, unable

to controvert the facts exposed and unwilling to deny a principle they deemed true, were

led to admit the equivalence of 'Through the Son' and 'From the Son', and to subscribe to

a profession of faith that embodied that acceptance. So the main obstacle that divided theChurches was overcome.

That in brief is how things went with the Greeks during the months of April and May.

How the Latins occupied their time in that same period is not known for lack of

documents, but their way of guiding the Greeks towards dogmatic agreement was to

present them for acceptance and discussion with successive draft statements on the

various points of difference and these were finally combined to form the doctrinal part of

the decree of union. These statements are preserved for posterity in theLatin Acts

(Syropoulus also records the first of them) and the same source indicates clearly enough

that they were part of a method.

On the Greek side the authorities are theDescription that follows the protocol of the

public sessions in the Greek Acts and theMemoirs of Syropoulus. Of these the former

consists of records of day-to-day events in chronological order, recounted briefly and in

proportion to their actual importance. The writer was increasingly in favor of union, a

fact which of course is discernible in this diary-account, but which never makes him

write as an advocate or propagandist of union, for he states facts not arguments.

TheMemoirs ofSyropoulus are very different. Though his narrative for the most part

follows the chronology of the events, it makes no mention at all of many meetings and

negotiations recorded by theActa graeca, but dilates on isolated gatherings, encounters

(frequently hostile) between individuals, and certain themes, the chief one, of course,being the pressure exerted by the Emperor and the Latins on the Greeks and the

insincerity and treachery of the 'Latinisers'.

To write the history of what really took place between April and July 1439, these two

sources have to be appraised, that is, not only the bare events and the incidents described

in them, but also the atmosphere, the background, the attitude and the motives of the


of 35 10/6/09 1:0


6/35

actors. In this respect theDescription offers very little material, whereas the Memoirs

abound in it, and it is precisely in this regard that, in my judgment, they are most

misleading, for one motive of Syropoulus in writing hisMemoirs at all was

unquestionably to provide an apologia for himself and others accused of betraying

orthodoxy for their having signed the decree of union, and this led him, unconsciously

perhaps, but nevertheless really, to select his material, to stress, perhaps to exaggerate,

certainly to interpret anything that would fit in with his conviction about the iniquity ofthe union and to omit entirely or almost entirely what might have suggested sincerity in

those who disagreed with Eugenicus and himself, because he could not believe that they

could have acted from any other motive than expediency or personal advantage.

In what follows I accept the chronological order of theDescription in the Greek Acts and

date the incidents given by Syropoulus accordingly, omitting nothing substantial of this

latter writer in my narrative even though I think much of it is historically unreliable or at

least suspect. Other people, however, may have other opinions and I leave it to them to

make their own assessment. Now to fill out this brief summary of the situation with some

detail.

The meeting in the sacristy of St Francis's convoked by Cardinal Cesarini took place on

the morning of Thursday, 26 March, when the texts of both Greek and Latin Fathers were

produced for examination. The result was a feeling in the minds of many of the Greeks

that here at last they had found a way towards agreement. The Patriarch therefore

arranged with the Pope that, as Holy Week was at hand, there should be no more

discussions till Low Sunday (12 April) when the Greeks would give their answer, and he

announced this decision at a meeting in his palace on the Monday of Holy Week, 30

March.

In the course of this gathering there was heated argument. Isidore and Bessarion had

advocated union and so to return home, when Dositheus of Monembasia broke in: 'Whatdo you mean with your going home at the expense of the Pope? Do you want us to betray

our faith? I would rather die than latinise.' Isidore replied that, as both Greek and Latin

Fathers affirmed the Filioque, union would mean nothing more than that the Greeks

would be agreeing with their own Saints. Whereupon Antony of Heraclea remarked that

the Fathers of the Councils and the Greek Saints together outnumbered the Latins, so the

majority should be followed; and Ephesus spoke at length declaring that the Latins were

not merely schismatics but heretics, though the Greek Church for motives of prudence

refrained from calling them such, and that was the real reason of the schism. Bessarion

heatedly replied: 'So the Saints who taught the Filioque are heretics! The western and the

eastern Saints do not disagree, for the same Spirit spoke in all the Saints. Compare their

works and they will be found harmonious.'

'But', said Ephesus, 'who knows if the books have not been falsified by them?''If', replied

Bessarion, 'we remove all such words from the books -- whole homilies, commentaries

on the Gospels, complete treatises on trinitarian theology ---there will be nothing left but

blank pages.' Dorotheus of Mitylene and Methodius of Lacedaemon (so says

Syropoulus), even more incensed than Bessarion, angrily attacked Mark with opprobrious


of 35 10/6/09 1:0


7/35

words and came very near to attacking him physically.

So the result of the Patriarch's efforts to create harmony was in fact to increase the

disagreement, news of which reached the Emperor's ears. The next day he went in the

rain to visit the Patriarch to try to restore concord. It was perhaps on this occasion that

there occurred incidents related by Syropoulus, though he allots them to three separate

meetings all in the Emperor's presence, when Eugenicus, in obedience to a request from

the monarch, expressed his doubts about the authenticity of the Latin quotations, which,

he said, should be held as dubious for lack of the means of checking them, and proposed

the letter of Maximus to Marinus as a kind of touchstone to test them by: 'Those that

agree with that letter I accept as genuine: those that disagree I reject.'

On the morning of the Wednesday of Holy Week there was another meeting in the

apartments of the Patriarch and further altercation, in the course of which Mitylene said

they could choose either to agree with the Saints and unite with the Latins, or to

stigmatize the Saints and depart. He too proposed as a formula for agreement the words

of Maximus: 'The Holy Spirit proceeding substantially from the Father through the

ineffably generated Son' (P.G. 90, 672 C). Bessarion took him up and produced otherGreek quotations to the same effect, especially from Tarasius of Constantinople.

Whereupon the Patriarch bade them write out those passages for consideration at a

meeting the next day when the Emperor would be present. But the Emperor could not

attend on Holy Thursday and asked that the meeting should be deferred till the Saturday.

On the Saturday, how, ever, the Patriarch was so ill that he was anointed and the

Discussion had perforce to be put off.

Meanwhile among the Latins the Holy Week services had been celebrated with great

solemnity. On Palm Sunday the Sovereign Pontiff himself, whose train was carried by the

Capitano di Giustizia of Florence, distributed the blessed twigs of olive to the cardinals

and the personages of the city. On the last three days of the week his throne was set onthe loggia ofS. Maria Novella overlooking the piazza, from which he gave his

benediction to the crowds assembled below. The ceremonies of Holy Saturday were

performed by Cardinal Cesarini, but the Solemn Mass of Easter Sunday was sung in the

church of S. Maria Novella by the Pope himself, in the presence of seven cardinals and

many bishops, after which he gave his benediction again from the loggia.

As the interval requested by the Patriarch for consideration was coming to a close, the

Latins began to urge the Greeks to formulate their reply to Montenero's exposition of

doctrine and the general question of union. A meeting with the Emperor on the Friday of

Easter Week produced only a message to the Pope affirming the reluctance of the Greeks

to enter into further public discussions, which were endless; let the Latins find some otherway towards union; if they could not, 'we have said as much as we can -- what we hold is

the tradition of our Fathers handed on by the seven Councils and that suffices for us' .

Mark of Ephesus, Isidore, Syropoulus and another of the Staurophoroi were appointed to

convey this ultimatum.

The next day they fulfilled their office and before Vespers recounted to the Emperor and


of 35 10/6/09 1:0


8/35

the other prelates the answer they had received. Eugenius had begun by complaining that

they had not fulfilled the obligations they had undertaken as regards the frequency of

public sessions and then proposed three points for their consideration -- did they accept

the Latin proofs of the Filioque andif not wherein lay their doubts so that they could be

settled; had they texts from Scripture affirming the opposite; or texts from Scripture

showing that their view was the better founded and the more holy. He then suggested that

each prelate of both Churches should affirm on oath his own opinion, so that the majorityview should be accepted.

On hearing this reply the Greek assembly was at a loss, for they had no solid argument to

put forward against any of the three points, and the suggestion of the oath (that, so says

Syropoulus, was Mitylene's invention) they shrank from, for no other Council had ever

had recourse to such an expedient. Mitylene tried to rally them, urging that the doctrines

of both Churches were holy as coming from the Scriptures and the Saints, so they should

hesitate no longer but enter into union: let that be our answer to His Holiness. There was

silence till the Emperor said that their answer should be to take up one of the Pope's four

points; whereupon the Protosyncellus remarked: 'What can we answer? We can say that

some of their quotations are false and others corrupt; that we know nothing of some andreject others, which is unreasonable. What then is left? To reply with lies? That is

unbecoming.'

The upshot was that the next day, Sunday, the Emperor sent the same four delegates back

to Eugenius to say that the four points he proposed amounted in reality to only one -- to

renew discussions, and that the Greeks would not do, for they were useless: the Greeks

retained the Creed approved by the Councils; the Latins were not disposed to alter theirs;

so what was the use of disputes and arguments? If the Pope could find a way towards

union, well and good; otherwise they would go home in a spirit of friendship. The Pope's

reply was to say that he would send some of his cardinals to talk with the Greeks.

In one of these private meetings among the Greeks the Emperor took the opportunity, so

recounts Syropoulus, to explain the principles that animated him in regard to the Church.

I am, he said, the defender of the Church, and this in the present circumstances seems to

me to involve two things, the first to preserve and defend the Church's doctrine and to

assure freedom of speech for all who wish to support it and to restrain such as captiously

contradict; the second to try to preserve concord amongst us. This I say to warn those

who persist in pointless cavilling and who refuse to submit to a majority opinion that they

will feel the weight of my imperial displeasure. We must try to find a means towards

union, and I suggest that if the Latins accept the trinitarian theology of St Maximus we

should unite with them.

Isidore, Bessarion and the Protosyncellus immediately agreed (continues Syropoulus),

but Ephesus and Heraclea and a few others dissented, Eugenicus remarking that even if

the Latins accepted the words of Maximus they would read a different meaning into

them. 'That does not matter' rejoined the Emperor, and proceeded forthwith to demand

that all should declare their opinions on his proposal, not individually but by acclamation,

and when some remained silent he asked ominously: 'Have they lost their voices?'(When


of 35 10/6/09 1:0


9/35

this incident is supposed to have taken place Syropoulus does not disclose, except that he

places it early in his narrative of the events that followed immediately after the end of the

public sessions [VIII, 15, pp. 221-3] and at about the time of the reception of the

disquieting news from Constantinople, which certainly was in the first half of April. It is,

however, in flagrant contradiction with the dated events narrated by the Acta graeca,

where the Emperor is the protagonist in warning the Pope that the Greek attitude as

regards doctrine was intransigent and that unless the Latins found an acceptable way tounion the Greeks wanted to return home.)

There ensued a bitter argument between Isidore and Bessarion on the one side and

Antony of Heraclea and Eugenicus on the other, which was ended only by the

intervention of the Emperor, who spoke scathingly to Heraclea, taunting him with his

ignorance and lack of culture.

The Greeks meanwhile, recounts Syropoulus, were subject to all kinds of privations.

Bessarion, wishing to go for a ride outside the city for exercise, found the way barred by

the Emperor's orders. Most of them had nothing to do (despite apparently the almost daily

meetings); only Isidore, Bessarion and Gregory, the Emperor's chaplain, were for everbusy making suggestions and proposals to their sovereign. The monthly provision for

their needs was not forthcoming and as April drew to a close they were in great want,

especially the lower ranks among them like the Emperor's Janissaries, which gave rise to

a revealing incident.

These under the pressure of hunger appealed to the Protosyncellus to represent their need

to the Emperor. Gregory, knowing John's disposition, preferred to assist them with a little

money of his own, and when he had no more he gave them a small part of his sacred

vestments to sell. After a time, having by now pawned their weapons and most of their

clothes, they returned to him but he was at the end of his resources. Instead he bade them

go to Mark of Ephesus and ask why he kept them in such a state of want by impedingunion.

A group of some twenty or so of them, failing to find Mark at home, angrily and

threateningly assailed the Great Sakellarius who, at first at a loss to know why, was

enlightened when they repeated Gregory's words. He wanted to have the Protosyncellus

brought before the holy synod for judgment but was restrained by his friends. A few days

later Gregory in the course of a conversation about the lack of means quietly remarked: 'It

is I who have held back and retained the maintenance allowances.'

(This highly improbable story is in keeping with the bitter hostility that Syropoulus shows

for Gregory throughout the whole of his book. Highly improbable because: (1) it iscompletely out of harmony with the machinery for paying the Greeks in Florence and

contradicted by the documents, cf. J. Gill, 'The Cost of the Council of Florence', in O.C.P.

XXII (1956), PP. 3i4-i6; (2) it runs counter to Syropoulus' own thesis that it was the

Latins who consistently kept back the money so as to force the Greeks to one concession

after another; (3) a little later Syropoulus mentions a payment on 22 May with no

reference, even by the Latins in self-defence, to this incident -- a payment for two months


of 35 10/6/09 1:0


10/35

beginning 15 February; (4) such an action on the part of Gregory, far from helping the

cause of union (which according to Syropoulus he pushed by fair means and foul), could

have done nothing but hinder it -- and Gregory was no fool; (6) it is out of keeping with

the character Syropoulus paints of Gregory that he should so tamely and unnecessarily

have confessed.

It will, however, have some basis in fact. Gregory may have made some remark to

someone, possibly one of the Emperor's dependents, suggesting that Ephesus' tactics were

prolonging their misery, possibly when he was giving an alms; but that he could have

received and kept the money, or ifeyvkatesthsakaiekpathdatostthpeson [not easy totranslate] does not mean that but only that in some other way he caused it to be withheld,

is more than highly improbable).

Whatever the truth of this story, the Greeks were really living in straitened circumstances.

The ecclesiastics complained time and again to the Patriarch who finally sent the Bishop

Damianus with Syropoulus and another of the Staurophoroi to declare to the Emperor in

his name and their own that they could bear it no longer but should return home. They got

little consolation from him, however. All he did was to say that, if they were idle, he wasnot, and that it was all very well to talk of breaking off discussions and going home --

that would have to be done by stages and it was the Church's business to do it, not his, as

he did not want to incur all the opprobrium for failure that would follow on such a step.

At about this time, too, disquieting news came from Constantinople with an urgent

request for two papal ships to forestall a possible attack. John was confident that he

would get them and indeed that in a fortnight he would sail with them himself. But when

he approached the Pope, appealing to the provision in the agreement between them

whereby His Holiness had bound himself to send help in extraordinary danger and even

suggesting that the 10,000 fl. owed by the papal exchequer for the upkeep of the ships

and bowmen already in Constantinople should be used to arm new vessels in Italy, he metwith a blank refusal. 'Such was the help for his country in its pressing needs that the

Emperor found from the Latins', comments Syropoulus.

The cardinals, whom the Pope on 12April had promised to send, did not come till three

days later. In the interval Bessarion delivered his Oratio dogmatica to the assembled

Greeks. (P. G. 161,543-612). It is given in full at this point in the MSS. of theActa

graeca which include theDescription, though I suspect that it was the scribe

Plousiadenus who put it there, not the original author. Syropoulus says no word at all of

this speech nor of that of Scholarius that followed it. It is a work of erudition and sober

argument. After a brief introduction he referred to the discussions in Ferrara on the

Addition: 'For they (i.e. the Latins) already have given an account of what they say andbelieve and we have replied to the best of our power ... to some of their arguments by

complete silence, to others with no answer worthy of the name.'

However, till there was a general Council there was an excuse for the division between

the Churches, but now there is such no longer. The Councils have always relied on the

words of the Doctors who went before. All Doctors are inspired by the same Holy Spirit;


0 of 35 10/6/09 1:0


11/35

they must, therefore, all be in agreement among themselves and there can be no real

opposition between them, so that if there is any apparent contradiction we must try to

conciliate their different statements. It is logical that the words of those who spoke more

obscurely should be interpreted by the clearer utterances of others, which in the present

case means to explain the Greek Fathers by the Latins.

Still for Easterns the eastern Fathers have most weight, so the task is to prove from these

that they agree with the western Saints. The prepositionDia (through) always has the

force of a mediating cause. When used in connection with the Holy Spirit it is an efficient

cause, for there is no place for any other kind, and always refers back to the Father. The

Greek Doctors (who are quoted at length) who used the preposition 'through' of the

production of the Holy Spirit are many -- Athanasius, Basil, Maximus, Gregory of Nyssa,

Gregory of Nazianzus, John Damascene, the seventh Council and Tarasius.

St Maximus and St John Damascene, though they admit of the use of the word 'through',

seem to some to deny that the Son is also the cause of the Holy Spirit, but that denial is

only apparent, for in those passages they intend by the prepositionEk(from) the principal

cause. St Cyril, quoted so much by both Montenero and Eugenicus, has a whole sectionto himself and appears again immediately afterwards where the speaker goes on to treat

of the Doctors who employed 'From the Son' and 'From both', to show that they were

referring to the 'going forth' and the 'going forth' of the Person of the Holy Spirit, not

merely to his action among men by grace, and Cyril is discussed still again in regard to

his relation with Theodoretus, another point on which Montenero and Eugenicus had

disagreed.

The western Saints say the same as the eastern. The quotations from them made in the

sessions and later delivered to the Greeks in writing so that they could be read at leisure

and studied prove that. The doctrine of the Filioque is universal among the Latin Doctors,

so it is clear that these agree among themselves and agree too with the eastern Saints.Whatever was the case before, now at any rate there is no excuse for division. Three

courses are possible -- not to accept the Filioque, to accept it, to declare that the Latin

books are falsified. The first of these courses is absurd; the third unworthy and

impossible, for the doctrine of the Filioque is found in so many and such ancient Latin

books and the Greeks have no early Latin codices to check them by.

There remains therefore the second choice. The alternative would be dishonor for the

nation and calamity both temporal and spiritual for their people. Union with the Latins is

their only hope of salvation. Yet Bessarion declared that he himself, unless he were

completely convinced that the Latin faith was sound, would not have exhorted his hearers

to union: he would have preferred death first. But as the Latin Doctors and the GreekFathers agree there is no reason left for disunion.

In the course of these same few days while they were waiting for the promised visit of the

cardinals, Scholarius also delivered an address to his compatriots. His discourse, usually

called: On the Need of Aiding Constantinople, is of another temper altogether. Whereas

Bessarion's had been the calm, persuasive, reasoned exposition of a theologian,


1 of 35 10/6/09 1:0


12/35

Scholarius, obviously in a high state of nervous tension, due partly perhaps to ill health,

but mainly to his anxiety for Constantinople in view of the news lately received,

harangued his hearers and at times came very near to invective.

The Greeks at large, he said, were ignorant of Latin skill in dialectic and theological

learning; but even those not unacquainted with Latin scholarship came to Italy confident

that they would easily convict them of ignorance and error, and so effect the union they

desired -- that perhaps would have been the happiest issue. What actually has happened is

that the Latins have defended their faith brilliantly, invoking in their favor the six most

renowned Doctors of the Church with apt and sober comment, Greek Doctors, too, in like

manner, and have replied learnedly and truthfully to our arguments. We have no Saint

who clearly contradicts them and, if there were such, he should be interpreted to conform

with the majority.

The contradictions we deem the Latins liable to do not necessarily follow from their

doctrine. They affirm that they believe like us. They harmonize the words or the Saints

and make no Saint clash with any other. They do not demand from us the profession of

the truth -- that they leave to our consciences. They seek neither their own glory nor ourconfusion. Words perhaps we can oppose, but not of any great moment. The Saints we

may not deny, or say that they are mutually opposed that would be to confuse and reject

the whole of the faith, while to say that the Latins have falsified them is the height of

stupidity.

Ifwe object certain apparent differences among the Doctors, the Latins will dissolve

them in a moment -- they have indeed already done so. We could do that for ourselves

without recourse to them even I could do it within a couple of hours for you. There is no

time now to sit idle and at ease exchanging empty words and striving for victory.

Scholarship amongst us is at a very low ebb... Words and words again lead not to peace

but to further dissension, so omit further words, and embrace peace and with it returnhome, for there is no obstacle to this since the Latins have shown their orthodoxy with so

many witnesses that we may join them and that with no innovation in our Creed.

You all know the particular reason why we longed for union of the Churches, to bring

relief in the danger that threatens us. Since then with honor we can achieve that, we must

do so; if we do not, our case will be worse. Give no credence to them who urge that even

after union no help will be forthcoming because of the divisions among the western

secular powers and the uncertain position of the Pope. No great force will be required.

The enemy fears our union. Latins and barbarians know that the chief cause of union is

our hope of help and that if we fail all hope is gone.

Remember the gravity of the situation, the strength of the enemy, the weakness of our

defenses, the length of wall to be manned, the size of our population halved by the

plague. So, leaving everything else aside, we should consider whether we can honorably,

that is conformably with the sacred Scriptures and the Doctors, join with the Latins, and

if so we should straightway renew our friendship with them, prepare ships partly at their

expense, partly at our own, selling our very bodies if necessary and striving night and


2 of 35 10/6/09 1:0


13/35

day.

So, union immediately and then away. Remember wives, families, dependents, and what

conquest by the infidel will mean for them who look to us as their saviors. We are the

advance-guard of Christianity. The Latins will think we have hearts of stone if after the

reception of such news from home we sit idle with no Saint to oppose theirs and no other

answer but 'corrupt'. God helps them who help themselves. The present danger forces us

to union. The Latins, I say, should be received and communion with them welcomed, for

they err in no point of the faith. They exhibit the Doctors in harmony: it is we who put

discord among them, as I will show if asked.

So we should receive them and recite the Creed as before. Ships should be got ready and,

leaving behind three or four of ours to settle what questions still remain, the rest of us

should depart and reach home within seventy days. But if you will not unite, you will not

be indisposed to the Latins as before. The alternative before us is either to unite and then

return or to send help, or if there is no hope of union at least not to sit idle but to render

help to Constantinople as best we can -- any other course will deservedly lead to our

shame and the just reproach of treachery to our own.

The Cardinals came to the Greeks in the palace of the Patriarch on Wednesday, 15 April,

Cesarini, Condulmaro the Treasurer and Domenico de Carranica (Firmanus) with some

ten bishops and a few doctors of theology and others. Cesarini was spokesman. He began

by recalling to their minds the long delays they had caused first in Constantinople, then in

Venice, later in Ferrara. They had three times formally agreed to a fixed number of

sessions per week not to be omitted on any account, and each time had failed to keep

their word. The Pope had fulfilled and more than fulfilled his obligations. The Latins had

proved their faith amply, so the Greeks should either accept the necessary conclusion or if

they still had doubts get them solved in public discussion.

The Emperor replied flatly rejecting any further discussions. A remedy for a disease is

used only till the disease is cured, then it is discontinued. So it was with discussions. It

was now time to find another method. We, rejoined Cesarini, have clarified the doctrine

with the words of the Saints. Your reply is neither yes nor no. The cure for the disease is

discussion; the schism still remains, so the remedy is still to be applied. We, said the

Emperor, will join in no more discussions. Discussion will lead us nowhere. You drown

us in words and then claim victory. 'So Your Highness is a prophet', replied Cesarini. 'He

who lacks for an answer seems to give consent as when the Metropolitan of Ephesus

abandoned the debate, for he has not made any answer yet. Discussion should go on till

the truth is established.'

But Cesarini could not convince the Emperor. Instead John proposed that ten

representatives from each side should meet in eight conferences to see if any result could

be obtained that way, and the Latin delegates had to be content with that. On the

following Friday he visited the Pope and won his consent to the expedient, after which he

spoke to the Greeks gathered together in the Patriarch's apartments to explain the

procedure, that he with the interpreter would accompany the ten delegates to a hall in the


3 of 35 10/6/09 1:0


14/35

papal palace and there on alternate days a Greek and a Latin would develop some

suggestion that promised a lead to union, not as an official proposal but as his own idea

independently of the views of others, and that what was there said should be

communicated afterwards each day to those who were not present. For this purpose he

appointed Antony of Heraclea, Mark of Ephesus, Isidore of Russia, Dositheus of

Monembasia, Dorotheus of Trebizond, Metrophanes of Cyzicus and Bessarion of Nicaea,

with three other prelates.

Syropoulus remarks that what went on in these conferences was never divulged, though

some information was forthcoming by hear-say. TheDescription is rather more detailed

in its account, recording too that after two meetings the Greeks were disinclined for more,

but under pressure they attended another three.

Both authorities agree that at the first meeting it was urged on the Greek side (by

Bessarion, according to Syropoulus) that the text of Maximus should be mutually

accepted as a formula of union, but the Latins objected that, though they too did not hold

the Son to be the primary cause of the Holy Spirit, they did teach that with the Father he

was the cause of the Spirit.

The second conference, on the following day, discussed the profession of faith of Tarasius

of Constantinople with its 'Through the Son'. This suggestion may have come from

Isidore. At any rate he wrote a paper about this time that proposes a solution of the

problem along these lines. But the Latins could not agree. They inquired if 'through' and

'from' were the same in Greek, and as they were not, they rejected 'through' lest it be

interpreted merely as an instrument, like a pipe for water. At another of the conferences,

according to Syropoulus, Ephesus bluntly proposed the excision of the Filioque from the

Creed, since the Greeks would never accept it. A further suggestion put forward was

perhaps that each Church should retain its own profession and interpretation of the faith.

These last two expedients, as is obvious, were unacceptable to the Latins.

So the private conferences failed in their purpose. But they proved in the event to have

been a step in the right direction, for as a result of them the Latins sent to the Greeks at

their request a statement for their acceptance which was ultimately approved and

incorporated into the final decree of union. Here, however, there is a difference of some

factual importance between the two Greek authorities.

TheDescription recounts that at the end of the conferences the Western Church

transmitted in writing a short profession of faith affirming its belief that there is only one

principle and cause of the Holy Spirit, namely the Father primarily but not so as to

exclude the Son, and that the addition to the Creed was made to preclude error in regardto the divinity of the Son, which those who deny the Filioque are assuredly liable to.

On Wednesday, 26 April, the Greeks, Patriarch included, met in the palace of the

Emperor, who was ill, to consider their answer, but they could not agree. Two days later

they received another statement from the Latins to the same effect as the first though

phrased differently. There followed two days of consultation with the Patriarch which


4 of 35 10/6/09 1:0


15/35

with difficulty produced a reply based on St Cyril and St Basil, describing the Spirit as

'gushing forth', 'springing forth', 'flowing from', 'being sent forth from' the Son. This did

not satisfy the Latins who demanded to know what precise meaning the Greeks attributed

to such phrases: did they refer them only to the second and temporal mission of the Holy

Spirit, though the words themselves, as the Saints understood them, clearly indicated the

one eternal mission and declared that the Spirit receives being from the Son.

Syropoulus, on the other hand, records only one formula of union from the Latins, that

was discussed on some unspecified date by the Greeks, in the presence of the Patriarch,

before the Emperor who was ill and in bed. The text he gives of that statement tallies with

the text found in theLatin Acts (neither of them is quite accurate) and with the relevant

part of the decree of union, and is verbally so different from the two Latin documents

included in theDescription that it is unlikely that either of these is meant as an outline of

the western formula. Quite what place these hold in the course of events is obscure. They

may have been memoranda presented by the Latins at some time during the private

conferences, confused by the author of theDescription with the more official statement.

As the meeting in the Emperor's palace took place on 29 April, the 2 cedula must havebeen presented some few days before, since John excused his receiving the prelates in

such conditions on the groundsthat the Latins were impatient at the delay. He bade themconsider it so as to accept it, to amend it, or to reject it, and in the last case to draw up

themselves a statement that would satisfy both parties. The Latin statement read as

follows:

'Since in this sacred Oecumenical Council, by the grace of Amighty God, we Latins and

Greeks have met to effect holy union conjointly, we have in common been at great pains

that that article about the Procession of the Holy Spirit should be discussed with great

care and assiduous investigation; after, then, the production of texts from the divine

Scriptures and very many quotations of the holy Doctors both eastern and western (someindeed saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, some however

from the Father through the Son, and after perceiving that all bore the same meaning

though expressed differently),

We Greeks declared that what we say, namely that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the

Father, we do not say with the intention of excluding the Son [from Whom we do not

deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally and has his essence as from the Father,] but,

because we thought that the Latins say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and

the Son as from two principles and two spirations, we refrained from saying that the Holy

Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son;

We Latins, however, assert that what we say, namely that the Holy Spirit proceeds from

the Father and the Son, we do not say with the intention of excluding the Father from

being the source and principle of the whole of divinity, of the Son namely and of the Holy

Spirit, nor by declaring that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, that the Son has not

this from the Father, nor thereby do we assert that there are two principles or spirations,

but we assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the Holy Spirit, as


5 of 35 10/6/09 1:0


16/35

we have asserted hitherto. (The decree adds here: 'And since from all these one and the

same understanding of the truth emerges, finally they unanimously agreed with the same

sense and the same mind to the following holy union, pleasing to God', because it

replaces the similar sentence of the cedula by 'We define').

In the name, therefore, of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, finally in this

holy union, pleasing to God, with the same sense, the same soul, the same mind we

Latins and Greeks agree and accept that this truth of the faith should be believed and

received by all Christians and so we profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the

Father and the Son' and proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and a single

spiration (The decree adds here: 'and has his essence and his subsistent being from the

Father and the Son together'); (declaring that what the holy Doctors and Fathers say,

namely that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son is directed to this

sense that by it is meant that the Son like the Father is according to the Greeks the cause,

but according to the Latins the principle, of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit,) and since

all that is the Father's the Father himself in generating gave to the only begotten Son

except to be the Father, this too, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son

Himself has eternally from the Father from whom also he was eternally generated.'

(The square brackets signify that the words contained in them are to be found in the

decree and the Acta Lat. but are omitted in Syropoulus; the round brackets contain words

found in Syropoulus but neither in the decree nor in the Acta Lat. The decree therefore

repeated the cedula with the two small additions noted above, a few other very slight

variations of words and the changing of the first person plural of the verbs of the cedula

into the third person plural).

When this statement had been read out the hearers (continues Syropoulus) were

immediately divided into two parties, Isidore, Bessarion, Dorotheus of Mitylene,

Gregory, Methodius of Lacedaemon willing to accept, the rest led by Mark of Ephesusentirely opposed. Soon the Patriarch, being unwell, retired to the room of

Philanthropinus, but the Emperor followed with close attention as Isidore and his

associates contended for the equivalence of 'through' and 'from', which Eugenicus flatly

denied.

John bade everyone speak freely, but to state the reasons for his assertions as well as his

opinion, which would be recorded in writing. To Heraclea objecting that this was an

innovation in the procedure of Oecumenical Councils, he replied: 'It is my will, so that

afterwards people may not change.' So the morning passed.

The prelates returned in the afternoon with the three lay philosophers, Scholarius,Gemistus and Amiroutzes and the secretaries of the Patriarch (who was still in the

bedroom of Philanthropinus), and the argument began afresh, with Amiroutzes an ardent

supporter of Bessarion. Eugenicus quoted St Maximus and St John Damascene as

denying the Filioque, and Bessarion's only answer was that the letter to Marinus was

incomplete and so inadmissible, and that the Damascene's was but an isolated voice. (Yet

Bessarion had treated of these two authorities at length in his discourse of a few days


6 of 35 10/6/09 1:0


17/35

before, and explained their apparent opposition to the Filioque doctrine -- but Syropoulus

in his Memoirs ignores that speech).

Evening found them still arguing. Next morning, at the Emperor's command, they all

assembled again, with the same results, Ephesus quoting the Fathers, especially Gregory

of Nyssa (P.G. 45, 369A), to prove that they used of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the

Son both the prepositions 'through' and 'with'. Bessarion, frustrated, tried to turn the

tables by declaring that Mark had already conceded the doctrine to the Latins. Syropoulus

demanded to know when and, Bessarion replying that it had been in the private

conferences, Ephesus rebutted the charge by explaining the obvious intention that had

underlain his words -- he had agreed to unite with the Latins if they removed the Filioque

from the Creed, knowing that, if they did that, they denied the whole basis of their

doctrine, admitted themselves in error it and embraced the Greek faith, which he had not

for one instant expected they would do.

The Emperor, then, reminded them that they were there to compose an answer to the

Latin statement. Whereupon Isidore produced a treatise written by Becchus and began to

read out some of the patristic quotations it contained. (Becchus: the Patriarch ofConstantinople who later favored the union made under Michael VIII at the Council of

Lyons [1274], deposed, imprisoned and several times tried by the Synod after Michael's

death. Beccus was an acute theologian whose patristic arguments neither then nor since

have been refuted by his opponents. At the time of the Council of Florence he was held in

execration by the non-unionists).

Bidden by John to select a few as a basis of an answer for the Latins, they chose a

quotation from the Council of Nicaea ('The Spirit will be found proceeding from the

Father, proper to the Son and gushing forth from Him' , Mansi, 2, 868CD) and a phrase

from Cyril of Alexandria ('The Spirit flowing forth substantially from both, that is from

the Father through the Son' , P.G. 68, 148 A) showing that the Greek Saints agreed withthe Latins and as a sufficient ground for union. All were asked if they accepted this

solution and the special secretary (hypomnematographos) was told to write down their

answers, yes or no.

The first three or four to reply having spoken at length, the rest were bidden to be brief as

time was passing. Syropoulus insisted on a more lengthy reply and, on being cut short,

gave his answer as No. Sophronius of Anchialus, he says, and Damianus of Moldo,

Wallachia with George Cappadox the Protekdikus and the best of the superiors of the

monasteries agreed with him, but the majority was of a contrary opinion. Isidore,

Bessarion, Michael Balsamon the Chartophylax, Gemistus and Scholarius were

commissioned to frame the Greek statement, but when the last-named produced ananswer he had composed already, Isidore and Bessarion accepted it without further ado,

though the other two demurred.

Scholarius' draft-statement was a very clever piece of work. It was modeled on the Latin

cedula, much of which it repeated almost verbally, inverting, however, the order in which

the Latin and the Greek positions are outlined and modifying only the resume of Greek


7 of 35 10/6/09 1:0


18/35

theology there given, to read as follows:

'We, however, the Greeks, confess and believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the

Father, is proper to the Son and gushes forth from him, and we affirm and believe that he

flows forth substantially from both, namely from the Father through the Son: and now we

unite with each other and are conjoined in a way pleasing to God. Having given proof to

each other each of his own faith and confession, we decree that for the future neither will

hold aloof from union and communion with the other, but once again we are brought

together and are of one mind and are all reestablished by the grace of God into one

Church.'

It was hardly to be expected that this would please everyone and it did not. When the

Emperor numbered the votes there were twelve against and, counting in also the

secretaries included at Mitylene's suggestion, twenty-four in favor. The Patriarch also

gave his vote from the other room in favor. Two metropolitans with the Skevophylax and

the Sakellarius were commissioned to take it to the Pope.

The Latins, however, were not satisfied, which is not surprising, for even Mark Eugenicus

later described it as deliberately equivocal, 'as holding a middle ground and capable of

being taken according to both doctrines, like an actor's boot'. The Latins knewthat theGreeks commonly interpreted words like those found in their draft-statement as referring

to the mission of the Holy Ghost in the hearts of the faithful and, therefore, as in no way

clarifying the eternal relationship of the Spirit to the Son. So their reply, after two pointed

paragraphs Inquiring if the Greeks besides repeating the Latin outline of trinitarian

theology also accepted it, contained ten other questions framed to elicit a precise

statement -- of what the Greeks meant by this formula of union.

An ambiguous formula, they wrote, is useless, for one of the two interpretations allowed

by it is false. Union of body without union of mind is no union at all. So let the Greeksmake a plain statement of their faith in unambiguous words, or else accept the Latin

cedula. This answer from the Latins was never communicated to the Greek synod. The

Emperor held it back. (This would hardly seem to be true. The A.G. p. 416 and Eugenicus

[Relatio, etc. p. 447] both show a knowledge of it with no suggestion of its having been

concealed).

While all these negotiations were taking place, time was passing and now it was well on

into May. In the meantime Traversari had written a letter full of joy to Cesarini:

'Our friend Bessarion today in a public meeting of the Greeks before the Emperor and all

the bishops burst out into words of confession and praise, saying openly to all that theholy Roman Church believes correctly in the mystery of the faith and that the addition to

the Creed was most rightly made and that this belief, this profession, which he was now

proclaiming he was ready to give in writing; declaring that when they went away from

this place he would separate himself from them and endure every hardship if that should

be necessary... The Confessor of the Emperor acceded to his opinion and very many were

in tears.'


8 of 35 10/6/09 1:0


19/35

Another event of the time was the solemn translation on Sunday, 26 April, of the bodies

of St Zenobius, a former bishop of Florence and patron of the diocese, to whom the

citizens had a great devotion, and of St Eugenius and St Crescentius from the crypt to a

specially prepared chapel. Pope Eugenius himself officiated and six cardinals and a great

number of archbishops and bishops, both Greek and Latin, assisted him. Demetrius, the

Emperor's brother, was present with the envoys of the various princes and communities,

proton, notaries of the Latin Church and Greek nobles and no small number of thepopulace.

The Latin rejection of their formula for union threw the Greeks into despondency, so that

their only thought was to finish with it all. If things went on like that, they would be in

Italy all the autumn and the winter. Three of the Staurophoroi, the Chartophylax, the

Protekdikus and Syropoulus, as he himself relates, independently of each other besought

the Patriarch to let them return home, but the only result was a severe reprimand from the

Emperor. No maintenance allowances had been paid since their arrival in Florence and

repeated requests had moved, not the Latins to give, but the Emperor to wrath.

The clerics poured out their laments to the Patriarch and the Emperor, who on Sunday, 10May, promised that he would shortly visit the Pope to make some definite arrangement, a

thing he had lately been prevented from doing because of his illness. So on Wednesday,

13 May, the eve of the feast of the Ascension, he went to Eugenius, but without result.

The Pope's reply was that he wanted time till the following Friday to consider.

On the Friday, then, the Emperor returned. Cardinal Cesarini spoke for the Pope -- the

Greeks refused to take part in public discussions and now, after an exchange of written

statements, were unwilling to explain theirs. In such circumstances what could be done?

John answered that he had no wish to force union on his people: they had spontaneously

formulated their statement and it was adequate since 'gush forth', pour forth', and the rest

attribute cause to the Son, 'even if they (i.e. the writers) do not state it clearly owing tothe ignorance of individuals': you profess that the Son is cause of the Spirit; we do not

deny it; what else do you want? But Cesarini was not satisfied, because the Greeks

attributed these phrases to the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit whereas the Latins

wanted an unequivocal statement of their trinitarian doctrine. So no concord was reached.

On 17 May the prelates met in the Patriarch's palace (for Joseph was again ill) at the

Emperor's behest, but at the last minute John himself could not come as he was expecting

a visit from some cardinals. The Patriarch told them of what had gone on between the

Emperor and the papal court and dissipated their gloom as best he could, counseling them

to patience and confidence in their sovereign's efforts. These, however, were not

producing very encouraging results.

On 21 May John went again to the Pope and later received in audience three cardinals

who insisted once more on the necessity of a clear reply from the Greeks to their queries

about the statement of union, but in vain, for the answer they got from John was: 'We

neither write nor say anything else, except that if you accept what we have given you we

will unite; if not, we shall go home.'


9 of 35 10/6/09 1:0


20/35

The next day the cardinals came back ag in and on the same day, 22 May, the Patriarch

received 12088 fl. as the allowance for two months for the ecclesiastics. Two days later,

Whitsunday, the Pope invited the Emperor to visit him. John went after Vespers.

Eugenius, however, had nothing new to say and only expressed his disappointment at the

vacillation of the Greeks and their refusal to define their position more clearly. The

Emperor explained the reasons:

'What Your Holiness says is very just; we ought to make our statement clear. But the

Orientals are not all of one mind about this. The majority of them have doubts about what

you demand, either from ignorance of the subjects being discussed or from inability

suddenly to give up their traditional belief, for our fathers thought that the Latins asserted

two subsistent causes of the Holy Spirit, and so they do not all easily accept this union

because of the expression 'From the Son'. So perforce we do as much as we find them

disposed to. I am not the master of the Greek synod, nor do I want to use my authority to

force it to any statement. So I cannot be of any help in what Your Holiness enjoins.'

At this the Pope asked John's consent to address the Greek synod, and this was arranged

for the following Wednesday.

The meeting was a solemn occasion. Nine cardinals were present with the rest of the

Latin Fathers, the whole of the Greek Church in Florence apart from the Patriarch, and

larger numbers than usual of Latin notaries summoned especially by the Pope. The

Emperor was not there. His Holiness began by recounting his high hopes of a successful

issue of this Council of union when he had noted the enthusiasm and self-sacrifice of the

Greeks, who had endured so many sacrifices to be present at it, then his growing

disappointment as delay followed delay in Ferrara and as in Florence the discussions

were abandoned, despite the exact provisions of the formal agreements. The Latins had

deferred to the Greek desire for private meetings; these had been given up: they had even

condescended to present a profession of their faith in writing; the Greeks had returned anambiguous answer, which they were unwilling to clarify.

'What am I to say? I see division everywhere before my eyes and I wonder what use to

you division will be. Still if it shall be, how are the western princes going to look on it?

And what grief will you yourselves have; indeed how are you going to return home?

Union however once achieved, both the western princes and all of us will be greatly

rejoiced and will provide generous help for you. And our aid will be a source of great

alleviation to the Christians dwelling in the East and to those in the power of the infidel. I

exhort you then, brethren, following the precept of Our Lord Jesus Christ, let there not be

division in the Church of God, but be urgent, be vigilant, let us give glory to God

together. Our union will produce abundant help to the soul; our union will give greathonor to the body; our union will bring dismay to our enemies both corporeal and

incorporeal; our union will cause rejoicing among the Saints and angels and gladness in

heaven and on earth.'

The Pope's words moved his hearers deeply. For the Greeks Isidore of Russia replied with

a few words thanking him and pleading that as the issue was of the very highest


0 of 35 10/6/09 1:0


21/35

importance time was needed for consideration. The Greeks, he said, had never been

inactive in their efforts for union, but in discussions either public or private had been

striving for it; it demanded time, however, and deep thought.

After this meeting with the Latins the Greek prelates gave a full report to the Patriarch.

He sent four of them, Isidore, Bessarion, Methodius of Lacedaemon and Dorotheus of

Mitylene, to the Emperor, who not only recounted to him the Pope's speech but urged him

strongly to action, going so far as to say that whether or not he wanted union they would

unite with the Latins. John was rather overawed by their firm stand (which was the real

beginning of the movement that ended in union) and as a result summoned a meeting of

the Greek synod.

(The account that follows is an attempt to combine the narratives of the Acta graeca, pp

426-45 and of the Memoirs, IX, 2, p. 251-16, p. 276 -- a hopeless undertaking really both

because they differ so widely in spirit and because Syropoulus spreads over two weeks

what the Acta bring within the compass of three days -- in such a manner that the reader

may know what part each authority contributes. What is not indicated as taken from

Syropoulus should be attributed to the Acta).

On Thursday of Whitweek therefore the prelates and clerics gathered in the Patriarch's

apartments. The Emperor spoke to them recalling that the whole purpose of their long

journey to Italy had been to unite the Churches, yet after fifteen months there was no

result. In this regard there were two possible disasters -- to unite, but unrightfully; or to

be divided, yet unjustly. They should remember too the plight of Constantinople and give

such votes as would harm neither soul nor body, but beware lest they let slip an

opportunity of achieving so great a good: whoever should impede this holy union would

be execrated more than Judas the Traitor.

When he had finished speaking he found that all approved of union in principle, but, says,Syropoulus, there was soon acrimonious argument on the value of 'through' and 'from',

Ephesus being the center of a stormy debate. Whereupon the Emperor imposed silence

and limited the question at issue to the one point: Are the quotations from the Latin

Fathers put forward by the Westerns genuine or spurious? Those, he said, who declare

them spurious could speak their minds freely, but they should give a proof of their

statements and produce the books in support. Isidore of Kiev (as the Greek Acts recount)

spoke after the Emperor, arguing that the books of the Saints of the Latin Church should

be read and harmonized because they are in fact harmonious, since the Saints always

write in agreement with each other, seeing that the Holy Spirit speaks in them.

This principle met with general consent and Bessarion, taking the cue, proceeded to recitepassages from some of the works of Cyril and Epiphanius where these Saints declared the

Holy Spirit to be from Father and Son, or from both, or to have his being from the Son, or

to flow forth from him. Mitylene followed with quotations from Latin Fathers where they

state clearly that the Father and the Son constitute one cause of the Holy Spirit and he

proceeds from both. 'Till now', declared the Greeks, 'we never knew the Latin Saints nor

read them: now however we have come to know them, have read them and approve


1 of 35 10/6/09 1:0


22/35

them.' When the Emperor, therefore, bade them declare their opinions there was general

agreement to accept the Latin Saints and their writings as genuine.

Hardly (continues Syropoulus) had the pro-unionists finished deafening the audience with

quotations than, without leaving time for consideration, demand was made that all should

give their votes. After the first four or five had spoken the rest were bidden be concise,

but Syropoulus, when his turn came, despite the Emperor's impatience embarked on a

lengthy disquisition about the difficulty of finding criteria to judge of the authenticity

even of well-known writings, let alone of works utterly unfamiliar. So, rendered

distrustful by the episode of the interpolated copy of the Acts of the seventh Council that

the Latins had put forward in Ferrara, he would accept only those Latin writings as

genuine that were in agreement with the letter of St Maximus and the words of St Cyril,

the rest he rejected as spurious.

The general result was that all except four or five of the prelates accepted the genuineness

of the Latin quotations while most of those who followed Syropoulus in the order of

voting adhered to his opinion. That did not suit the Emperor's book, so three days later he

had recourse to a stratagem to close the mouths of the recalcitrant Staurophorol. Heannounced in a meeting of the Greeks that for the future only those should vote in their

assemblies who had the right of signing a decree of a Council.

To settle who those were, though everyone already knew, the farce was enacted of

consulting the Acts of the former Councils. Only bishops and archimandrites subscribed

to the Acts, so only bishops and archimandrites should give their opinions in the

meetings. Thereupon the question of 'through' and 'from' was ventilated again, and when

Antony of Heraclea wished to read out some passages touching on the topic, Gregory, the

Emperor's chaplain, bade him first anathematise Cabasilas and in this way silenced him

with his sarcastic comments.

Two days later there was another general meeting and another on the following day when

all the old quarrels were renewed; two days afterwards there was still another when the

Patriarch demanded to hear the words of the early Fathers, so on the following day

Bessarion read out cunningly edited passages from St Cyril and Epiphanius after which

the Emperor addressed the clerics.

Two days later there was still another gathering when all were asked to vote on the

Filioque question. The Patriarch, pressed to speak first, murmured something so

indistinct that he was thought to reject the doctrine. Of the bishops and the heads of

monasteries ten were in favor and seventeen against. The Emperor was for having the

senators vote, but the Patriarch opposed him.

Then followed two days of canvassing, the Patriarch cajoling Ignatius of Tirnovo,

Joasaph of Amasia, and Damianus of Moldo-Wallachia that in loyalty to himself who

consecrated them they should vote with him (he failed, however, in a like attempt with

Ephesus), Isidore winning Matthew of Melenicus, Dositheus of Drama, Callistus of

Dristra with the blandishments of a good dinner, and the Emperor following similar


2 of 35 10/6/09 1:0


23/35

tactics with other prelates and the envoys of Trebizond and of Moldo-Wallachia. (It was

Drama who, reports Syropoulus elsewhere, accepted the Filioque 'provided the Holy

Trinity remained unharmed').

In this fashion the way was prepared for a final vote which, says Syropoulus, took place

on 2 June.4

This long series of meetings, all connected with the question of the Latin texts, whichculminated in the voting of 2 June, must, if Syropoulus' chronology, vague though it be,

is anything like correct, have started about the middle of May. That is not very likely

because the narrative of theActa, where the events are attached to a clearly stated and

closely integrated series of days, dates and liturgical feasts, portrays the atmosphere of

mid-May as one of despondency and discouragement with regard to union, with no gleam

of hope to relieve it till after the Pope's speech of 27 May. Then, according to theActa,

things moved quickly.

On 28 May, as has been said, a general agreement was reached on the genuineness of the

Latin writings. Friday the 29th was passed, both morning and afternoon, examining still

further the doctrine of the Fathers, especially the oriental Fathers. On Saturday there was

another meeting in the Patriarch's palace when George Scholarius read out his judgment

on the Filioque. (Scholarius after Eugenicus' death became the leader of the

anti-unionists in Constantinople and the first patriarch after the capture of that city by the

Turks).

It began by recalling that he had already in the exhortation he had delivered earlier to the

Greek synod disclosed his opinion on the question: that opinion he had since amplified in

two carefully worked out treatises which he now offered for their perusal, the first a

consideration of the nature of union and other kindred topics, the second a proof of the

agreement of the Teachers based not on human argumentation but on the Scriptures andtheir own words, which he was sure would convince any unprejudiced reader.

(These two treatises are always printed as three under the headings: (1) On the

Character of Religious Peace, that it should be a Dogmatic Union not a Peace of

Expediency; (2) The Solving of the Difficulties that impede such a Peace; and (3) The

Factors that will make for such a Peace [Schol. 1, pp. 306-72; PG. 160, 405-524]- Of

these (1) and (2) go together to form the first treatise as Scholarius presented it. They are

too long to recapitulate here: this is how Scholarius himself summed them up: 'I advised

you not even to take into consideration the method of expediency that some have in view,

but I declared that it was essential to effect true union and community of doctrine, which

I said was to accept a single opinion about the questions in dispute and to profess thisalso in the symbol of the faith, either by adding or by taking away according as the grace

of God should indicate. Further, the reason for which some are disturbed and pessimistic

about this union I showed to be utterly weak and reasonably conducive to anything but

hindering you from union. Then I added the factors that make for it, without dilating on

them but for the most part just mentioning them, and these are, in a word, the union of the

holy Scriptures and the Teachers of the Church' [Schol. 1, pp. 371-2] )


3 of 35 10/6/09 1:0


24/35

Then, after submitting his judgment to the decision of the Greek synod, or rather to the

Oecumemical Council then sitting, and protesting that as a layman he had no wish to

usurp the functions of the clergy by speaking publicly on a doctrinal question -- he did it

only, he said, from respect for the Emperor's wish -- he solemnly declared that, as the

Saints agreed in accepting the twofold Procession of the Holy Spirit yet as from one

principle and without either making the Father and the Son two principles or confusing

their Persons, so he professed and believed the same. When he finished he went out andhis hearers fell once again to studying the eastern Saints.

The next written vote to be recorded is that of the Patriarch:

'Since we have heard the words of the Holy Fathers both western and eastern, the former

saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, the latter from the

Father through the Son, even though 'Through the Son' is the same as 'From the Son' and

'From the Son' the same as 'Through the Son', still we, not using 'From the Son', say that

the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son eternally and substantially, as

from one principle and cause, the 'Through' in that phrase meaning cause in this matter of

the Procession of the Holy Spirit;'

and he added to this acceptance of the Latin Fathers the proviso that the Greeks should

not introduce the Filioque into their Creed, but would unite retaining all their ancient

customs.

The Patriarch was followed by the Emperor who, as a layman, abstained from

pronouncing on the dogmatic question. He confined his decision to a declaration that he

accepted the present Council as Oecumenical no less than any of those that had gone

before and that he considered that his position as Emperor imposed on him the duty of

defending whatsoever should be sanctioned by it or its majority, since the Church cannot

err in doctrine without rendering void the promise Our Lord made to St Peter. But as thatis absurd, 'therefore the Church of God must be infallible and we must follow its

decision, I especially who by God's grace bear the imperial insignia, and hold and defend

it, it being understood that the Latins do not compel us to make any addition to the holy

Creed, or to change any of the customs of our Church.'

Isidore spoke next approving of the Latin Saints and the doctrine of the Procession from

Father and Son. Bessarion agreed, adding that that doctrine was necessary to salvation.

Antony of Heraclea, Mark of Ephesus, Dositheus of Monembasia and Sophronius of

Anchialus were all opposed: Dorotheus of Mitylene approved.

When all the prelates had delivered their judgments it appeared that in addition to Isidore,Bessarion, and Dorotheus, also Methodius of Lacedaemon, Nathanael of Rhodes,

Callistus of Dristra, Gennadius of Ganos, Dositheus of Drama, Matthew of Melenicus,

Gregory the procurator of Alexandria and the monk Pachomius were in favor of the Latin

doctrine. 'Later' , continues the narrative of the Greek Acts, 'there were added to us

Cyzicus (Metrophanes), Trebizond (Dorotheus) and Monembasia (Dositheus) the

procurator of Jerusalem.'


4 of 35 10/6/09 1:0


25/35

Tuesday 2 June (so recount the Greek Acts) passed and on Wednesday, 3 June, there was

another meeting in the apartments of the sick Patriarch, this time with the imperial

courtiers, the philosophers, the Staurophoroi, the superiors of monasteries and, in a word,

with all the Greeks present. The Emperor addressed them. Most, he said, on the occasion

when he had given his judgment after the Patriarch, and those the more notable, had

pronounced in favor of the Latins and the equivalence of 'through' and 'from', and all had

accepted the words of the Latin Fathers. As most had already delivered their decisions inwriting, it was fitting now that the rest should declare their minds and that the voice of the

majority should prevail. The Patriarch spoke first:

'I will never change or vary the doctrine handed down from our fathers but will abide in it

till my last breath. But since the Latins, not of themselves but from the holy Scriptures,

explain the Procession of the Holy Spirit as being also from the Son, I agree with them

and I give my judgment that this 'Through' gives to the Son to be cause of the Holy Spirit.

I both unite with them and am in communion with them.'

When the Patriarch finished speaking there was general accord that the Holy Spirit

proceeds from Father and Son as from one principle and one substance, that he proceedsthrough the Son as of like nature and substance, that he proceeds from Father and Son as

from one spirati

The Council of Florence

Documents

Transcript of The Council of Florence